Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Burqas and bomb threats: A broader context for 'The Muslim Problem'
Q: What is the obligation of a Western, democratic government to protect individual freedoms in light of a realistic terrorist threat? Are the producers of South Park right to forfeit their freedom of expression in the interests of protecting their employees? Are the governments of Europe right to ban burqas in the interest of fostering a more open society?
One way of gaining perspective on what is affectionately known as the "Muslim Problem" is to consider the broader questions raised by specific challenges. It seems to me there are two broad types of questions. What are the needs and rights of identity communities in a broad diverse society, and how much should the broader society (in the form of the state, major civil society institutions, the popular culture, etc.) seek to accommodate such needs and rights? In situations of tension or conflict between certain elements of the identity community and the broader society, what measures can the broader society take to protect the common good?
Right now, newspaper headlines provide a plethora of examples regarding certain Muslim minorities in Western nations, but when viewed in a broader context with some historical perspective, a range of other examples present themselves, from the situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka to Sikhs in India to French speakers in Quebec. The more we view current events as part of broader issues, the less heat and more light we will have in dealing with such challenges.
What light might political philosophy, the field that generally considers the questions above, cast on the larger question of identity communities in diverse societies, and specifically on the issues raised by some Muslims within some Western nations? I find the most helpful torch offered by Michael Walzer in his simple but elegant line: The challenge of a diverse society is to embrace its differences while maintaining a common life.
What this means, simply, is that people in America are not only encouraged to hold on to their ethnic/racial/religious/ heritage (in the form of food, language, pride, family arrangements, connection to arts, etc.), and not only is this not considered a threat to the broader society, but the broader society actually invites the contributions of such connections (from ethnic restaurants to civic associations to pride festivals) and considers itself stronger for it.
As President Obama stated in his Inaugural Address, our patchwork heritage is a strength not a weakness. We are a nation in which for the most part, people from different backgrounds not only get along, but feel respected, have positive relations between communities and hold a commitment to the common good. We call this the narrative of an immigrant nation. It's a narrative that has been written by authors ranging from James Madison to Jane Addams to Martin Luther King Jr. to Barack Obama. It's a narrative that, frankly, many European nations who have experienced high levels of immigration and diversity only in the last half century are struggling to write for themselves.
For a society to continue to thrive, no particular identity can be allowed to threaten the common good. Nobody gets to say that my religious, ethnic, racial, or gender identity requires me to dominate you. If that happens, the state needs to step in - balancing its power with our cherished civil rights - to protect the broader society. Clearly this principle operates in the case of bomb threats. Where there is reasonable danger, the state needs to take appropriate measures.
The burqa issue is an interesting gray area. Some Muslim communities could reasonably say, "This is a core part of my identity." The broader political community could reasonably say, "This is an obstruction because it makes citizens literally unidentifiable to one another."
I think this is one where the pragmatist route wins. One reason that some Muslim women wear burqas is to express an oppositional identity against the broader society. My advice would be simply to not pick the fight. My guess is, the less said by the state about the burqa, the fewer burqas will be worn.
By
Eboo Patel
|
May 7, 2010; 9:01 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Cairo: from vision to reality |
Next: Free speech or foul behavior?
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | May 11, 2010 9:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
EXPERIMENTS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE ARE DIFFICULT, BUT PAKISTAN & INDIA ARE A RARE EXAMPLE. People of the same DNA and genes that share common languages, rituals, and cultures (e.g. Punjabi, Sindhi, etc..) are separated by religion. In just 60 years, there have been clear results. India (based on Hinduism and Vedanta) is a tolerant, pluralistic, vibrant, nonaggressive democracy. Progress is seen in politics, economics, education, etc… India has had Presidents who are Muslim, Hindu, Dalit, female; Prime ministers who are Sikh, Hindu, female; Defense ministers who are Christian, Hindu, Sikh; powerful politicians are even Italian Catholics like Sonia Gandhi. More progress needs to made in many places in Indian society, but even in America Blacks had very limited rights till the 1960’s and now Obama is president. Tolerant peaceful societies make progress.
In contrast, Pakistan has become an increasingly intolerant and violent society. Pakistan used to have 40% Hindus, and now it is only 1%. The culture of Hindus of tolerance and peacefulness has made even Muslims in India relatively peaceful when compared with dominantly Islamic nations.
Pakistanis have no common identity – except hatred of India. The members of this society do not feel a common bond, which is necessary to make progress. All that is left is a false sense of unity and statehood, which has promoted Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. And this is a recipe for disaster
Posted by: clearthinking1 | May 10, 2010 1:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is Eboo Patel really working for a better world or is he simply another well-paid profiteer using his non-profit group to get around paying taxes?
See below:
Eboo Patel pays himself well ($120,000/yr) from his Interfaith Youth Core "non-profit" group's receipts (donations etc.) which, based on the group's IRS Form 990, appears to be more of a stock holding company ($2,335,960 portfolio in 2008- guidestar.org) for Mr. Patel than it is a non-profit.
Non-profits do not pay taxes on dividends, interest or capital gains.
Did Eboo Patel's Interfaith Youth Core work for Obama's election campaign as we see Eboo is not only on the recent Chicago Council of Global Affairs' task force (former employer of Mrs. Obama) but also on Obama's Faith advisory council?
Did a Faith Initiative grant from the State Department help defray the cost of CCOGA's report and Mr. Patel's task force pay?
Questions asked before but never answered by Mr.Patel.
Posted by: YEAL9 | May 8, 2010 10:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The shamelessness has reached it's nadir! Actually this is well-known in the Indian community but good that every one else is recognising their shamelessness!
Pakistanis pose as Indians after NY bomb scare
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64655Y20100507
Posted by: futuralogic | May 8, 2010 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Eboo says:
“One reason that some Muslim women wear burqas is to express an oppositional identity against the broader society.”
Some women who do not wear the burqa in their original Muslim majority societies wear it as soon as they land in the West. Some women are forced to wear this shroud by their husbands. Others, especially from among the celebrities such as film actors or TV personalities are paid by Islamist organization to cover up. All point to the accuracy of the above quoted assessment. It is a statement that they despise our culture. Our ready made reply to such an affront should be. 1. Why are you here? And 2. You are more than free to head back to the paradise from which you had escaped.
Posted by: abrahamhab1 | May 7, 2010 4:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Western civilization is based on a fairly simple principle -- the marketplace of ideas, and the right (and perhaps even obligation) of each person to participate in that marketplace.
The problem with some religions is that they teach people not to use or trust their own judgement and to substitute the words of a holy text in their stead. Communities that do that stifle themselves, like poor Southerners.
I don't doubt that the Muslims who post on this forum understand where respect for tradition and mysticism ends and judgement based on modern knowledge begins. But it doesn't appear that a critical mass of the 1.5 billion others do.
Posted by: WmarkW | May 7, 2010 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
The burqa predates Islam, and so it can be argued, no Moslem woman is obligated to wear one merely by the fact of being Islamic.
Islam calls for modesty.
There are many ways to dress modestly without drawing a crowd to stare. Long pants or a long dress, a long sleeved blouse buttoned to the top, covers up everything. Despite the supposed debauchery of the West, loose-fitting clothing is an "in" fashion style.
The vast majority of people all over the world, men and women, even in all Islamic areas, do not feel compelled to mask their faces in public. For the few that do, well, that is what it is, a compulsion which has nothing to do with modesty, nor Islam.