Which Privileges for Islam?

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.

By way of example, note two current Canadian controversies. The first concerns the establishment of voluntary Shar'I (Islamic law) courts in Ontario. This idea is promoted by the usual Islamist groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Canada and the Canadian Islamic Congress. It is most prominently opposed by Muslim women's groups, led by Homa Arjomand, who fear that the Islamic courts, despite their voluntary nature, will be used to repress women's rights.

I oppose any role for the Shari'a, a medieval law, in public life today, but so 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 in Montreal are outrageous and unacceptable. As a secular institution, the university on principle does not provide any religious group with a permanent place of worship on campus. Despite this universal policy, the Muslim Student Association, a part of the Wahhabi lobby, insists on just such a place, even threatening a human rights abuse filing if it is defied.

McGill must stand firm. 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:

&#8226 Schools and universities closing for the Eid al-Adha holidays.

&#8226 Male employees permitted to wear beards in New Jersey.

&#8226 The founding of an Islamic cemetery in Tennessee.

&#8226 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:
&#8226 Setting up a government advisory board uniquely for Muslims in the United States.

&#8226 Permitting Muslim-only living quarters or events in the United States and Great Britain.

&#8226 Setting aside women-only bathing at a municipal swimming pool in France.

&#8226 Banning Hindus and Jews from a jury hearing a case about an Islamist in Great Britain.

&#8226 Changing noise laws to broadcast the adhan (call to prayer) in Hamtramck, Michigan.

&#8226 Allowing a prisoner the unheard-of right to avoid strip-searches in New York State.

&#8226 Exploiting taxpayer-funded schools and airwaves to convert non-Muslims in the United States.

&#8226 Allowing students in taxpayer-funded schools to use empty classrooms for prayers in New Jersey.

&#8226 Deeming the “religious vilification” of Islam to be illegal in Australia.

&#8226 Punishing anti-Islamic views with court-mandated indoctrination by an Islamist in Canada.

&#8226 Prohibiting families from sending pork or pork by-products to U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq.

&#8226 Requiring that female American soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear U.S. government-issued abayas.

&#8226 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 U.S. 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 the Gr and Mosque of Strasbourg, because the same body also helped pay for renovations to the Strasbourg Cathedral and the city's Grand Synagogue. It is quite another when the City of Boston, Massachusetts, sells land for an Islamic complex at well below the market price, a benefit unheard of for other religious groups in that city.

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.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and the author of several books, most recently Militant Islam Reaches America. You may visit his website by clicking here and purchase his books by clicking here.

(This article courtesy of the Middle East Forum.)

Daniel Pipes


Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and the author of several books, including Militant Islam Reaches America and In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power (Transaction Publishers), from which this column derives.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage