http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/29flip.htm?q=tp&file=.htm
The debate over Muslim separatism in the US
November 29, 2006
Some months ago, I recall a North Indian lady talking about the cultural differences she experienced when in South India. Visiting relatives posted in Kerala, she made a pilgrimage to the famed Shri Krishna shrine in Guruvayur. Upon entering the temple she devoutly covered her head -- only to be sternly reprimanded by a priest who told her that this was against Hindu conventions.
The temple guardians at Guruvayur were quite right. I don't know how many readers would have stepped into the National Museum in Delhi (sadly ignored by most visitors to the capital). The wealth of treasures in the museum is so great that it has actually spilled out into the lobby. One of the first pieces of sculpture you can see -- before coming even to the ticket office -- is a marvellous statue of the goddess Saraswati, from the Chauhan period as I recall.
The goddess of wisdom is portrayed without any covering on her head. So are depictions from thousands of years of Indian history, from the dawn of civilisation on the banks of the Sindhu through the Mauryas, the Guptas, and other dynasties. But as time passes -- and you enter the galleries showing Rajput miniatures from later periods -- the veil makes its appearance, until even Adishakti Parvati has her face partly covered.
It is, literally, a graphic demonstration of West Asian cultural mores replacing those that were native to India. South India, shielded by the arms of everyone from the imperial Chalukyas in the eighth century to Vijayanagara and the Marathas, retained the ancient cultural traditions. And so it was that a Rajput lady found that the act of covering her head, perfectly acceptable in Mathura, was frowned upon in Guruvayur.
It is not my intention to revisit the debate over the wearing of the 'niqab', the face veil that has been identified exclusively with Muslim women. The niqab is not as important in itself as for what it symbolises -- a mark that deliberately, even defiantly, proclaims that its wearer stands apart from society as a whole.
Several English commentators have come up with the same argument against the veil; if Christian visitors to Islamic nations must observe local traditions why should there be a different standard for Muslims living in Europe? Call it a simplistic argument, even a little crude, but it points to a growing impatience with some of the claims put forward by Muslim immigrants who refuse to integrate.
It is not just a question of a woman wearing a veil. A section of Muslims living in Britain have called for a 'Majlis', a Muslim Parliament of their own to govern themselves. Other Muslims living in the Canadian province of Ontario were caught trying to set up Shariat courts to settle family disputes, effectively ending the common civil code in Canada. And in Australia a Muslim cleric tried to justify the wearing of the veil with ill-considered remarks comparing women with uncovered faces to 'raw meat chased by dogs.'
But it is in that quintessential nation of immigrants, the United States, that the debate over Muslim separatism will resound most loudly. I don't know if the incident was covered in Indian newspapers but a minor issue at the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport became a darling of conservative talk-shows in the United States.
It turns out that many of the cab drivers at the airport are Muslim immigrants. A section of them started refusing to take passengers who were carrying alcohol (which, of course, is a staple of duty-free shops in every international airport). They tried to justify this by quoting the Koran, which bans the consumption of liquor.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission offered what it thought would be a 'pragmatic' solution, special roof lights for Muslim taxi drivers. This proved to be the last straw, and the Metropolitan Airports Commission was inundated with angry messages, asking why a secular body was giving the green signal (literally so!) to a Shariat ordinance.
One American wrote in asking if the same cab drivers would refuse to take him because he was carrying a hamburger (pig meat being forbidden in Islam). Several women sarcastically demanded whether they would need to cover themselves before sitting in a taxi.
Confronted with such protests, the Metropolitan Airports Commission withdrew its proposal. But the result of the brouhaha was a further deterioration in the image of Islam in the minds of ordinary Americans.
Minnesota, the state in question, has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold. It was, for instance, the only one of the 50 states that Ronald Reagan could not carry in the 1984 presidential election. But a few weeks ago, in the teeth of the anti-Bush wave, Republicans Tim Pawlenty and Carol Molnau were elected as governor and lieutenant governor of liberal Minnesota.
By the way, Minneapolis-St Paul is scheduled to host the Republican National Convention in 2008, the one that will select the party candidate for the presidency of the United States. The attitude of the taxi drivers is thus guaranteed to draw national attention.
At about the same time that the Metropolitan Airports Commission was beating a retreat in America, the head of the British intelligence agency MI5 was delivering a public warning about Muslim immigrants in the United Kingdom. Speaking at Queen Mary College, London, on November 10, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller grimly stated, 'The extremists are motivated by a sense of grievance and injustice driven by their interpretation of the history between the West and the Muslim world. This view is shared, in some degree, by a far wider constituency. If the opinion polls conducted in the UK since July 2005 are only broadly accurate, over 100,000 of our citizens consider that the July 2005 attacks in London were justified.'
This was essentially a repetition of what Peter Clarke, deputy assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard, said back in July, namely that there were roughly 70 ongoing investigations into terror plots and that the majority of these investigations related to 'the activities of British citizens against their fellow countrymen.'
Eliza Manningham-Buller said in the course of her speech that she spoke 'not as a politician but as someone who has been an intelligence professional for 32 years.' That was a clear snub to politicians who have been calling for 'tolerance' and 'multi-culturalism.' What is more, it seems to have struck a chord with the British public -- so much so that Jack Straw was inspired to write an article for the Lancashire Telegraph claiming that he asked Muslim women to raise their niqab if they wanted to talk to him.
Please remember that Jack Straw is not just an ordinary MP in Britain. He is currently leader of the House of Commons and was, until recently, foreign secretary. He knew perfectly well that his writing would raise a storm but he went ahead and did it anyway in the calculation that it would please British voters.
Anti-immigrant rhetoric has a history of over a century-and-a-half even in the United States. You can find anti-Irish speeches from the 1840s, followed by slurs against Italians, then by attacks on immigrants from eastern Europe in the early years of the twentieth century. Each of these receded, then faded entirely, as immigrants adopted the social norms of the host country.
What is worrying the Americans, the Britons, and others across the globe, is that the Muslim immigrants of today are showing absolutely no signs of even wanting to integrate. Worse, in some instances they are regressing, with second generation British Muslims harbouring friendlier feelings to, say, Al Qaeda, than their immigrant parents.
Worst of all, some of them are now trying to insist that the host nations adjust to their desires rather than the other way round, the taxi drivers of Minneapolis being a perfect example. Or, as that priest in Guruvayur might have pointed out, just as the women of northern India adopted the West Asian custom of covering themselves?
Thirteen years ago, many sniggered at Samuel Huntington's thesis on the 'clash of civilisations' (later expanded into a book). Well, Huntington proved to be correct. The political scientist identifies unchecked and unintegrated immigrants as a threat in his latest book, Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity. Nobody is laughing at him today!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Speech by Thomas Friedman of The New York Times....
"When we were young kids growing up in America, we were told to eat our
vegetables at dinner and not leave them. Mothers said, 'think of the
starving children in India and finish the dinner.' And now I tell my
children: 'Finish your maths homework. Think of the children in India
who would make you starve, if you don't.'"
Location: British Columbia
Posted on: 30-11-06 01:05:42
Have you read Patrick Buchanan's book "Death of the West"?
This article that you linked to is interesting, if not a little chilling to read.
There are many issues here:
multiculturalism vs melting pot
The role of religion in state
I feel that the example of awoman covering her head in a temple is different than of an immigrant expecting a host country to adapt to its culture.
In canadian statistics, Those of us that are not "Caucasian" can identify ourselves as Visible minorities or racial minorities. In my office when a new client registers with us, we ask the question "Do you consider yourself a visible minority". I am surprised at the number of "visible" minorities that say that they dont consider themselves minorites..they say because they live in greater vancouver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
~ Morning rain
Quote:
Originally posted by shankaracharya
snip
Other Muslims living in the Canadian province of Ontario were caught trying to set up Shariat courts to settle family disputes, effectively ending the common civil code in Canada.
The second part of that sentence is inaccurate. From what I recall of the proposal, Canadian courts would have precedence over any 'decisions' by the Shariat court.
(FWIW, I don't favour Shariat courts in any way, just pointing out an inaccuracy)
Quote:
Originally posted by shankaracharya
snip
but it points to a growing impatience with some of the claims put forward by Muslim immigrants who refuse to integrate.
I can think of a few South Asian communities that refuse to integrate
Location: carl sagan's universe
Posted on: 01-12-06 09:50:17
I was just musing as to what integration entails and how it is viewed by different people. I put the question forth to a few at the office and got some general answers.
The word integrate is used a lot all over. Besides the usual dictionary meaning, what does it mean to contributors on CD. Would anybody like to express their ideas?
Here is the first entry from dictionary.com
1. to bring together or incorporate (parts) into a whole.
2. to make up, combine, or complete to produce a whole or a larger unit, as parts do.
3. to unite or combine.
4. to give or cause to give equal opportunity and consideration to (a racial, religious, or ethnic group or a member of such a group): to integrate minority groups in the school system.
5. to combine (educational facilities, classes, and the like, previously segregated by race) into one unified system; desegregate.
6. to give or cause to give members of all races, religions, and ethnic groups an equal opportunity to belong to, be employed by, be customers of, or vote in (an organization, place of business, city, state, etc.): to integrate a restaurant; to integrate a country club.
7. Mathematics. to find the integral of.
8. to indicate the total amount or the mean value of.
–verb (used without object) 9. to become integrated.
10. to meld with and become part of the dominant culture.
11. Mathematics. a. to perform the operation of integration.
b. to find the solution to a differential equation.
No. 10 above was the consensus at the office. For me it's a combo of 1 and 2.
What will it be on CD?
Please disregard the mathematical definition.Add to above or comment on one or all, if you please.
Rip them apart or support them. Rebuttals, reinforcements all welcome.
I'd go with 1 and 2 and 3...to make a new whole. In the process everyone adapts within undetermined boundaries. Ofcourse these boundaries are tested(e.g Shariat in Canada) and its then that compromises must be made to accomodate the consensus. In this scenario the hosts and the newcomers are in a symbiotic relationship with an exchange of Ideas and values/culture etc. In the process giving rise to a new culture. Here both the hosts and the newcomers have to adapt to each other and preserve the best of both worlds.
Note: I'm not in favor of Shariat or gram panchayat laws in Canada.
Number 10: sounds more like assimilation rather than integration. Assimilation does not seem as dynamic as integration because almost all the onus of change is on the shoulders of the newcomers. That to me seems to suggest that the newcomers have nothing to offer **until after*** they completely become like the hosts. To me it sounds like, in this scenario, the superiority of the host is implied.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Location: Ottawa (Now in Bangalore)
Posted on: 01-12-06 16:41:19
Quote:
Originally posted by jake3d
I'd go with 1 and 2 and 3...to make a new whole. In the process everyone adapts within undetermined boundaries. Ofcourse these boundaries are tested(e.g Shariat in Canada) and its then that compromises must be made to accomodate the consensus. In this scenario the hosts and the newcomers are in a symbiotic relationship with an exchange of Ideas and values/culture etc. In the process giving rise to a new culture. Here both the hosts and the newcomers have to adapt to each other and preserve the best of both worlds.
Note: I'm not in favor of Shariat or gram panchayat laws in Canada.
Number 10: sounds more like assimilation rather than integration. Assimilation does not seem as dynamic as integration because almost all the onus of change is on the shoulders of the newcomers. That to me seems to suggest that the newcomers have nothing to offer **until after*** they completely become like the hosts. To me it sounds like, in this scenario, the superiority of the host is implied.
Jake shame on you for not having Shariat in Canada... Think of the benefits you will have with Shariat
... *me dreaming of the Number 4* ....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Aur Vaise Bhi, Sharafat ki jab kapde utarti hai, sabse zyaada mazaa shareefon ko hi aati hai"....(From The Dirty Picture)
Warning !! SCAM ALERT !!
http://www.canadiandesi.ca/read.php?TID=4169 & http://www.canadiandesi.ca/read.php?TID=1379
This is a Useful Health related Tip
http://www.canadiandesi.ca/read.php?TID=3865
Please visit
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php for some interesting Information ! (Especially 009.005 )
Location: carl sagan's universe
Posted on: 03-12-06 09:55:32
Interesting reply. I would also think integration involves assimilation to a certain degree. I like your choice of words. Voracious reader or writer?
The reason that the office people said 10 is that they were referring to newbies incorporating and working within the culture of Corporate Canada and not say that in India it's like this or like that or in China it's like this or like that and try and change things here. What they did in the privacy of their home was their business, but once in the workplace, be Canadian. Bitching about work also allowed- that's a world wide phenomenon.
Even when shifting from one corp to another within Canada the new co expects you to forget about the culture in the old company and adopt the new one in your current co.
Let me ask a few questions. You don't have to reply if you'd rather not.
Would integration involve becoming passionate about hockey and talk about Sundin and Gretzky? Get passionate about Am. football and sit and watch Miami vs whoever with your Can friends? Watch Raptors? Will the Canadians as a whole accept cricket and become passionate about Tendulkar? Or even an English player? I mean Cricket is played by the English and Australians (no accident I picked these two countries) and the Head of State is the Queen of England so how come cricket was lost?
If other CDs would like to contribute their views-please do so.
