Akram's Razor - Reflections on Islam, Muslims & America

Newsweek on the myth of "Eurabia"

There's an incisve analysis in the current issue of Newsweek of the flawed assumptions that go into alarmist "Eurabia" demographic-threat rhetoric we hear so often on the Far Right.

It points out that a lot of the numbers that get thrown around in this debate are not only pure speculation, but speculation by people with anti-immigration agendas.

Here's the crux of the article.  "Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong" by William Underhill (NEWSWEEK - Jul 20, 2009):

For the number of Muslims to outnumber non-Muslims by midcentury, it would require either breeding on a scale rarely seen in history or for immigration to continue at a pace that's now politically unacceptable. More likely, new controls will slow Muslim immigration. The birthrate for Muslim immigrants is also likely to continue to decline, as it has tended to do, with greater affluence and better health care. There is no Europewide data available, but one study says fertility rates among Turkish-born women in the Netherlands fell from 3.2 in 1990 to 1.9 in 2005, barely above the figure for native-born Dutch. Over the same period, the equivalent figure for Moroccan-born women in the Netherlands dropped from 4.9 to 2.9. Also, fertility rates are edging upward in some Northern European countries, which would offset some of the Muslim growth. Bottom line: given the number of variables, demographers are loath to make predictions about the number of Muslims in Europe in the years to come. "You would almost have to make it up," says Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. And the idea of a Muslim majority any time soon? "Absolutely absurd."

Read the whole thing. It covers a lot of ground.

HT: Indigo Jo

Was Blackwater just following orders?

The established stereotype is of diplomats as cautious and conflict-averse negotiators that struggle to rein in gung-ho generals and grunts, but as the Christian Science Monitor piece below shows in the Blackwater case it appears that it's the American diplomats who've been the trigger-happy buckaroos, violating even the modest safety protocols employed by soldiers in wartime. To the extent that an internal State review panel needed to remind them of that they need to make sure their guards look where they're shooting.

Not that I make any excuses whatsoever for the homicidal rampages of trigger-happy yahoos.  If you take a life wrongfully in my book you should hang (in some cases literally), in wartime as well as peace and with foreigners as well as your compatriots.  Still, it seems that a fair amount of this blood is on the hands of State Department officials, and not for simply for being "lax" in oversight of its guards.

It appears that at least some of these tragedies were predictable consequences of the State Department's homicidally lax policies, its excessive zeal in protecting its staff even at the cost of innocent life. Judging by this article, State had as a matter of policy given its security details carte blanche to wax civilians almost at the drop of a hat.

Don't blame Blackwater | csmonitor.com

But the issue isn't an overly aggressive contractor. It's the State Department's zero tolerance for casualties of its employees in Iraq. Such an approach makes tragedies such as the September episode more common – and it marginalizes the lives of innocent Iraqis who just might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Placing so many diplomats and civil servants on nation-building assignments in the middle of a civil war has a high price – perhaps too high, as officials at State have finally started to acknowledge.

The US government appears to tolerate a certain number of casualties from the all-volunteer military. But civilian employees are a different story. Images of dead diplomats being dragged through Iraqi streets or videotaped beheadings of civil servants, it's assumed, would undermine already tenuous public support of the war.

The very branch of the US government charged with fostering relations with the Iraqi government and people is responsible for the behavior that has helped erode support from the Iraqi populace. The State Department Diplomatic Security Service set up aggressive rules for the use of force for its contractors in what's called the Mission Firearms Policy. These rules are more aggressive than those used by the military for its contracted forces. In fact, the Secretary of State's Panel on Personal Protective Services in Iraq recommended last month that these guidelines be amended to require basic assurances: "due regard for safety of innocent bystanders," "every effort to avoid civilian casualties," and only aimed shots – a nod to the fact that pointing and spraying rounds isn't explicitly banned.  

That stance may have a certain gut appeal at first blush. It makes for good patriotic posturing to declare you'll do "whatever it takes" to protect American civilians in harm's way, but foreign civilians manage to function in wars around the globe without such draconian methods. And what about when the approach is so heavy handed and irresponsible in practice that it guarantees regular killings of  civilians guilty of nothing more than going about their daily lives in their own communities?  When the operational protocols of an organization representing an ostensibly democratic and law-abiding nation treat the safety of the local populations as so trivial that security forces are free to riddle bystanders' cars with bullets for accidentally driving too close to a foreign convoy in  what they perhaps naively assume to be their country, you have a real breakdown in civilization itself, and on the part of its self-proclaimed bearers.

Obviously, State must and should do its utmost to protect its staff, but permitting indiscriminate bursts of gunfire at civilians in the absence of a serious demonstrated threat is reprehensible. And probably a war crime, when you really get down to it.

Now, if that's what they have to do to "get the job done" safely then that's probably an indication that they're in the wrong place doing the wrong job. If Iraq is so aboil that foreign officials and aid workers can't move about the country without feeling compelled to preemptively gun down women and children, then the situation's completely out of control and civilians shouldn't be there in the first place.

But I doubt such tactics are necessary, or that these problems are primarily driven by security. A more likely explanation, I think, is neo-colonial attitudes towards "natives", general ignorance, and the blinders imposed by MSM sensationalism and Islamophobic popular culture that make Muslims seem so inherently menacing to the average person that rational analysis of risk becomes impossible for all but the most hard-nosed and analytical. (Speaking of which, see John Mueller's sober and eye-opening--and thus heretically out of sync with most of what has passed for analysis in the Beltway --assessment of terror threats.)

Rather, it sounds to me like some decision-makers at State were thinking of Iraq like yuppie suburbanites who wet their pants at the thought of setting foot even momentarily in a majority-black neighborhood, deeming all interactions with the "natives" perilous. It's probably not conscious racism, but that doesn't make the root attitudes any less irresponsible or intellectually disreputable.

As in the case of the proverbial average white senior who thanks to racially-tinged media sensationalism about crime grips her handbag tightly when a black man joins her in the elevator, that reaction is perhaps psychologically understandable on the part of the average person caught in the crossfire of war--say, a caterer, delivering supplies to a base--but for an official on the ground it seems a damning mark of incompetence to me. If the repertoire of an official when faced with a mission as complex, multi-faceted and shifting as that of bringing peace and stability to Iraq consists only of sending a  message to the naives by allowing them to be periodically indiscriminately waxed, he or she should be pushing papers in Washington, if not serving time. Anything but calling the shots on the ground in a conflict they clearly misunderstand.

Iraq's a war zone and one with an increasingly active and menacing insurgency--a fact that hardly makes it unique in the annals of military history, it must be noted--not a graveyard in a B horror movie. I've never been there (though I have live across the water in the Gulf), but I doubt creatures inexplicably rise out of the muck at every turn and all but beg to be gunned down.

If I'm wrong about that, then our salvation in this conflict probably lies in deploying the current occupants of the White House and the coterie of pundits, lobbyists, religious zealots and ideologues  who cheerled for this farcical crusade from the beginning. Judging by their management of post-9/11 American foreign policy and their continuing obliviousness to the enormity of their catastrophic blunders, they'll have little to fear from zombies hungering for brains, anyway.

Looking for stereotypes in the Muslim world

Just made the mistake of finally watching "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World".  Good grief.  I was ready for a stinker, but I didn't expect such an unearthly stench.   I haven't awaited a film's end so eagerly since I endured the numbingly dull "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues".  Not even the cursed souls of of Mystery Science Theater 3000 could find humor in this agonizingly uninspired flick.

Having never once so much as cracked smile at a word Albert Brooks has uttered in his various films, I am not all that surprised that it comes up wanting in laughs.  In my opinion, Brooks has a sort of reverse Midas touch when it comes to comedy.  I mean, let's face it:  Hasn't his best comedic performance to date has been as an animated fish?

In fact, the only funny thing I can think of in connection with this movie is its NetFlix blurb [login required].  Notice the two parts that I've highlighted:

Funnyman Albert Brooks plays a comedian sent by the U.S. State Department to India and Pakistan to find out exactly what makes Muslims laugh -- all with an eye toward helping everyone to get along better in the post-Sept. 11 world. Directed and written by Brooks, this smart, thoughtful and, yes, funny film essentially bypasses religion, instead focusing on where people find humor, regardless of culture or beliefs.

But I didn't expect the movie to be so blandly hypocritical and ultimately offensive. 

The movie's silly premise is that the US State Department launches a project to study humor in the Muslim world in order to foster better understanding between America and Muslims.  Yet with exception of a brief foray across the border to a campfire in the Pakistani countryside, the movie never sets foot in the Muslim world or even a Muslim community.  Despite its title, it is set in India and features mostly Hindu characters.

More importantly, in the few scenes where it even momentarily concerns itself with Muslims the movie dutifully trots out Islamophobic stereotypes, and presents these traits in implicit contrast to the non-Muslim characters, who with the exception of one eccentric figure that makes a momentarily appearance are  portrayed as entirely normal. 

But every Muslim character displays an offensive trait.  Muslim anti-Semitism is a running joke through the film and the only recurring Muslim figure is shown to be a madly jealous caveman.  And not only does the film make the obligatory allusion to terrorism as permeating Islamic societies, it presents what normally is expressed tongue in cheek as factual by having its one Muslim (an Iranian) refer matter of factly to his high school "bomb-making class".  Oh, and the only other Muslims are a band of Pakistani comedians who carry machine guns and threaten our hero like thugs when he initially refuses to perform for them.   Har har.

Now, I don't have a problem with edgy, politically incorrect humor, nor do I don't expect pop culture to studiously ignore real world social problems.  Still, I expect responsible entertainers to portray a widely misunderstood and highly unpopular community with a modicum of balance  and respect.  Most importantly, I would not expect a complex community to be entirely reduced to a few crude ethnic cliches.   Even "Blacksploitation" films and shows portrayed African-Americans as normal human beings.

In a story featuring slightly developed characters, these issues would be fairly trivial, but when a diverse community is entirely reduced to a few crude stereotypes you have a serious problem.

Then there's the premise of the film and the way it never gets examined.  Among Westerners today, Muslims aren't known for their sense of humor--but then neither are Germans--so one can forgive the choice of topic.  What is hard to comprehend, though, is how the film never gets around to challenging or nuancing this impression.  The filmmakers have obviously had not been exposed to Punjabi Muslims' celebrated sense of humor, or the wicked quips Arabs make among themselves at the expense of their often despotic regimes.   And even if they have yet to acquire a rudimentary familiarity with the objects of their speculation, you'd think that common sense would eventually force them to move beyond these cartoonish stereotypes and entertain the remote possibility that Muslims share this basic human faculty.

One scene is particularly ironic:  Brooks has a meeting with the local bureau of Arab mega-network Al-Jazeera and they offer him a part in a new sitcom entitled something like "Watch the dirty Jew".  When Brooks passes on their generous offer, the boss barks to his assistant, "Find me another Jew!"   

This is a veritable play within a play, as in the final analysis this cheap film treats Muslims not much better than its wooden anti-Semite Muslims would Jews.  Most galling of all, it traffics in these crude stereotypes at the very same time that it preaches about dialog and understanding.

In this respect, as forgetable and insignificant as it is, the film captures the spirit of much contemporary  analysis of Islam and Muslims.  When confidently making generalizations about other cultures, observers often expose their own prejudices and ignorance as they self-righteously denounce the bigotry of others.

The influence of Christmas on Hannukah and so much else

Came across some intriguing observations and historical analogies in the Jewish Virtual Library concerning Hannukah and, indirectly, the multi-cultural Borg that  is Christmas for many of us non-Christians in the American Melting Pot.

Chanukah is probably one of the best known Jewish holidays, not because of any great religious significance, but because of its proximity to Christmas. Many non-Jews (and even many assimilated Jews!) think of this holiday as the Jewish Christmas, adopting many of the Christmas customs, such as elaborate gift-giving and decoration. It is bitterly ironic that this holiday, which has its roots in a revolution against assimilation and suppression of Jewish religion, has become the most assimilated, secular holiday on our calendar.

The story of Chanukah begins in the reign of Alexander the Great. Alexander conquered Syria, Egypt and Judea, but allowed the people under his control to continue observing their own religions and retain a certain degree of autonomy. Under this relatively benevolent rule, many Jews assimilated, adopting much of Hellenistic culture, including the language, customs, dress, etc., in much the same way that Jews in America today blend into the secular American society.

It reminded me of a post (The Grinch: A Misunderstood Mujahid) from exactly a year ago wherein I laid out the arguments of my younger years against Muslims and other non-Christians yielding an inch to the infectious old Christmas Spirit.

My objection was cultural and political.  I saw it as a cultural Trojan Horse, a sneaky way for the Christian majority to impose its values on non-Christian minorities.  Its ubiquitousness and the lack of attention given to other religions' holidays (except for the perfunctory nod to Hanukkah) offended my sense of multicultural equality.

Religious exchanges are great, but so long as they really are exchanges--it must be two-way street, not something imposed on minorities.  During my childhood in Boston,  nobody ever wished me "Eid mubarak" or gave a hoot about my religious background, so I resented having Christmas rammed down my throat (and really gave my Jewish friends grief over their "Hanukkah bushes") .  To my eyes, it was yet another way to promote assimilation and I was no fan of assimilation (and still am not, for that matter).

As a result,  I always found myself rooting for the Grinch during the TV special every year and came to view him, like Ebenezer Scrooge, as a tragic hero, a misunderstood mujahid for religious freedom and multicultural equality.

Times change, though.  While I'm sure there continue to be places in America where isolated Muslims  feel their sense of identity and autonomy to be similarly threatened by the forces of assimilation and secularization, Santa no longer casts such a menacing shadow, I think.  Today, we have Islamic mosques, dating services, butchers, clothing boutiques, supermarkets, conferences, book publishers, children's cartoons, etc. etc. , so the holiday season isn't necessarily a zero-sum game anymore.

Perhaps it's time for me lift my age-old ban on giving Christmas presents.  And without solemnly declaring for the benefit of my family, as did my father when he broke down in 1980 and bought my Danish grandparents julegaver (Christmas presents) during a childhood visit to Denmark, that said gifts were  "in honor of Hazrat Isaa as a prophet".  (Corny, but true.  These are the sorts of ideological boundaries religious and cultural minorities must establish to survive as they make concessions to the majority culture.)

Still, while times change with some things plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose.  I must draw the line on the shrub, however beloved it may be even to myself.   A platoon of Green Berets couldn't get a Christmas tree into my house.    As beautiful and inspiring a symbol as it is, it's not part of my religious or cultural tradition.  For non-Christian communities, I'd argue the Tannenbaum remains a  gesture more betokening of beleagured capitulation to a steamrollering monoculture than freely given ecumenical spirit.  (Meanwhile, some far-right Christians decry any attempt by corporations to balance Christian and non-Christians sensibilities during the Holiday Season as a "War on Christmas".  In fact, even referring to the "Holiday Season" is oppressive and offensive in their eyes, even though Hannukah always falls in the vicinity of Christmas, which means that we're always talking about more than one religion's holidays.)

Looking over that previous post, I see that I also made the same quip about sheesha.  I appear to have a one-track mind.

I also just realized how much I miss playing backgammon with friends over mint tea and fakhfakhina ("mixed fruit") flavored sheesha in cheesy Middle Eastern-themed dives in DC.  Even if we had such establishments out here in Cracker Barrel country, such pastimes are difficult (and presumably illegal) with a baby in tow.

CSM on American Buddhism

There's an interesting article in The Christian Science Monitor on the growth of Buddhism on American shores ("American Buddhism on the rise"), which according to this piece is our 4th largest religion today.

Even a larger factor [in Buddhism's spread in the USA --Svend], he suggests, is that Buddhism offers spiritual practices that Western religions haven't emphasized.

"People are looking for experiential practices, not just a new belief system or a new set of ethical rules which we already have, and are much the same in all religions," Surya Das says. "It's the transformative practices like meditation which people are really attracted to."

I don't know about Christianity and Judaism, but none of this is new to the Islamic tradition.  I have the utmost respect for Buddhism and awareness of how radically it differs from Islam in some fundamental respects, but I think comparable (if less ancient) practices are at the heart of Sufi Islam. 

Sufism has its own tradition of rigorous meditative practices and presents, I think, a comparably potent philosophical and psychological challenge to the Western mindset.  It also questions materialistic conceptions of life and reality.  In fact, the parallels between Sufi rituals of self-purification and its philosophical challenges to Western dualism and false dichtomies (inner/outer, mind/body, material/spirit, self/other, ...) that "Eastern" religious traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism address are quite striking. 

One could certainly make a strong case that contemporary Muslims have failed to highlight these resources that exist within Islamic tradition in a way that Westerners naturally inclined to Buddhism would find appealing.  Actually, this is a bit of an understatement.  (Speaking of Salafism...) 

Judging by most "Islamic" discourse one encounters today, you'd never suspect that Islam also tackles these matters.  Sufism has its own tradition for attaining balance, escape from the material world and enlightenment, and it's a path that I suspect practitioners of Asian religions would find quite familiar in key respects. 

The biggest difference is that it does so while maintaining the traditional Western belief in monotheism and the afterlife.

Another interesting observation:

Still, a healthy American Buddhism with its own characteristics is emerging. [...]

Perhaps most noticeably, "the role of women as leaders and teachers is very significant here," Seager says.

May we see comparable developments with American Islam.  Actually, I think this is already happening among America's Muslims, if less visibly and quickly than among Buddhists.

More on Hitler's fans in India

An Indian reader posted an intriguing comment on my post about anti-Semitism in contemporary India ("The latest thing in Bombay's nightlife: Nazi dining!"):

I believe that India hosts highest number Hitler admirers in the world. Most Indians are either unaware of the crimes committed during WWII or they conveniently chose to ignore it. Most young students and even radical elder people have a fascination, admiration of Adolf Hitler. I try to find the pattern of certain sentiments (both anti-muslim and anti-reservation) in India at my blog- it is just an attempt:
http://sujaiblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/adolf-hitler-and-indians.html

His post on the topic is thought provoking. 

I was especially intrigued by his comments on the anti-"reservation" backlash among Brahmans, which reminds me of the phenomenon of White resentment against minorities in the US over their supposed "special treatment" under Affirmative Action. 

Judging by the continuing stranglehold by the three elite castes on the upper echelons of Indian society (e.g., the Indian media), these measures have had a marginal effect on Indian society.   Nonetheless, such legitimate measures taken to redress the legacy of institutionalized prejudice (in this case against Dalits and members of other "scheduled" castes)  are resented (and no doubt greatly exaggerated) by those who have the least cause or moral right to complain about the injustices of the system.

The author also discusses increasing prejudice against India's Muslim minority, which as the bizarre alliance of Brahmans and Dalits in the Gujarat pogroms of 2002 shows is not limited to those at the top of the pecking order.

The problem with "Muslim-only" days: Balancing assimilation with natural social divisions

Recently, news broke in the United Kingdom of a "Muslim-only" day [Reluctant HT: Islamophobic] being organized by a local Muslim community at an amusement park.  I'm relieved that it turns out that the hysterical reports have been, as so much news concerning Islam (e.g., the Miami 7) is, exaggerated [Great work, Indigo Jo!] to conveniently dovetail with the bigoted stereotypes and political agendas of Islamophobes, but the issue raised by these reports remains relevant and worth exploring.  The idea of a Muslim community renting out a venue and then seeking to exclude non-Muslims from it in order to maintain some imagined atmosphere of purity is not all that farfetched and is in keeping with the thinking one encounters in some Muslim circles.  So, at the risk of beating a straw man, let's pretend for the sake of conversation that this was truly a Muslims-only event.

Given how fashionable it is today to seize on every manifestation among Muslims of natural and inevitable ethnic and cultural differences as signs of religious extremism or subversive isolationism, it should noted there is no reason to treat this case that way, as it seems rooted in worthwhile concerns about accommodating legitimate Muslim needs and preferences that often get neglected in the public square.  It's also very important that we not feed into all the hysteria and hype by making a mountain out of a molehill and treating what is a mundane social event as some kind of ideological statement.  Recreational venues are rented out exclusively all the time by families, religious groups, companies and political organizations.  Muslims communities shouldn't be expected to be an exception to this trend.

It is equally important to note the very different social context for Muslims in the UK from the USA (which recently had its own Six Flags Muslim Adventure Day). While I still consider such an approach mistaken in the USA, it is less of infinitely less concern here due to the far more successful integration of Muslims into American life (as The Economist insightfully noted recently, "the United States has a substantial Muslim population which on the whole seems pretty comfortable there, and has produced some of the world's best Islamic thinkers.") than in Europe.  Today's American social and political landscape is certainly not free of prejudice, discrimination and exclusion against Muslims, but by and large American Muslims are not struggling against the terrible demons, internal as well as external, as their British (and French and Danish) counterparts.  Consequently, the risk of separatism resulting from such occurences on American soil is minute by comparison.

Having said all that and being fully conscious of how understandable the decision is, I still feel a policy of artificially sealing Muslims off at such an event is counterproductive and shortsighted, even if the policy is an informal or partial one (e.g., by limiting ticket sales to a mosque).    I find it is objectionable on numerous grounds. 

First some general observations lest I be taken for one of these nativists who extol a narrow, Procrustean vision of integration and unity that are increasingly prominent in the debates of our day.

I don't mind a bit of "balkanization" or, a la Arthur Schlesinger's famous diatribe against multiculturalism, some  "disuniting" in American life. Some kinds of "unity" are actually a cover for the tyranny of the majority and, thus, need to be challenged for all to enjoy their due freedoms.  I am not a fan of the unity of the goose step. So I think some mild balkanization quite natural and indeed inevitable in any complex and dynamic modern society.  In my case, as a white American who does not speak Spanish and who with the exception of a brief business trip years ago to Guatemala City has never set foot in Latin America, I shouldn't be surprised if my Latino neighbors differ from me culturally in significant ways.  Those differences make them no less American, and if I find their differences threatening, that's ultimately my problem rather than theirs.

Whatever values of social unity we may formally espouse, when it comes to the great social dividers of race, class, religion and language, the proverbial birds of a feather continue to flock together in Western societies. Sure, the old lines dividing communities are a little fuzzy and sometime even porous,partly because once firm identities (especially religious affiliations) are often so lukewarm and muddled in our postmodern age. The bottom line remains that most people still stick to "their own kind" in their private lives.  Whites tend to hang out with Whites, Blacks with Blacks, Christians with Christians, professionals with other professionals, and so on.

Despite the incredible diversity of modern America—a place where the world's geopolitical Hatfield's & McCoys can find themselves neighbors and coworkers—most people do not interact on a regular basis with members of other races or religions.  Thus, most people today “learn” about others not through personal interactions but by consuming popular culture, especially television and films.   (Incidentally, as a result of this dynamic, Hollywood’s politically correct, feel-good portrayal of American  race relations arguably increases race problems by convincing many WhiteA mericans that America is far more integrated than it really is and that racism is a thing of the past.  Such a rosy view is refuted by the daily experiences of many other Americans.)

So I don't tend to fret about national unity I see Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria, Jews hanging out with fellow "members of the tribe",  Asian coworkers of various origins (east, southeast, south) instinctively socializing together at the office, etc. etc.  This is human nature.  So long as this practice does not result in injustice to others, there is nothing wrong with choosing to spend one’s time with people who happen to share more of your interests by virtue of their similar background.

This is a convoluted way of saying that I see nothing wrong with Muslims organizing events that cater to their needs and where they can, if you'll forgive the un-Islamic expression, collectively let their hair down. I understand and support the idea of creating an environment where Muslim families can relax and interact, knowing that legitimate needs will be accommodated (e.g., facilities for public prayer, halal food being available) but I do not accept the premise that one needs to surgically remove any non-Muslims from one's vicinity for this to be possible.  I see lurking in this assumption a host of the unhealthy cultural hangups masquerading as religious needs.   This yearning for communal purdah is not only entirely unnecessary, but quite harmful in the long run for Western Muslims.

Let's look at the arguments and their problems:

Privacy for Muslim Women.
Irrelevant, as women who hijab and otherwise dress modestly do so for all ghair-mahram men regardless of religion.  No matter how you interpret the requirements on dress, they don't change depending on the religion of the onlooker.

Halal food. 
Totally unrelated, and pork products can be removed from the menu that day (and without infringing on non-Muslims' rights; see comments below on alcohol and cheese  burgers below)

Prayer. 
Equally irrelevant to the presence of non-Muslims.  All that is required is the proper facilities being dedicated for such use throughout the day.

Social pressure against praying in public. 
This can admittedly be a real issue for Muslims going about their business in Western societies, but it seems an unlikely problem if it's officially "Muslim Day" and if the place is crawling with Muslims.  (If anything, this would make for dynamite dawah to the few non-Muslims adventurous enough to attend amid a sea of thobes and shalwa khameezes.)

The presence of alcohol. 
This is the one potential problem I see, but even it doesn't require such a draconian measure, either.  It's just a question of removing the alcohol from the menu that day.  The solution is to remove the alcohol, not those who might want to drink it.  If you can have a Muslims-only day, you can certainly have an an alcohol-free day (something that would appeal to some non-Muslims, as well, btw).

Personally, I don't accept the notion that it is always haram for Muslims to be in the vicinity of non-Muslims consuming alcohol. (Is it haram for a Muslim to observe a Catholic Mass or attend a Jewish Seder, rituals which by definition involve alcohol?)  Alcohol is haram for Muslims, but that doesn't make all alcohol consumption by non-Muslims inherently corrupting debauchery.  I think context (for both parties involved) is key. 

Still, I don't enjoy being around it and I can certainly understand how many would find the presence of alcohol in any form very uncomfortable (especially parents who quite understandably don't want to expose their children to the sight of alcohol). 

And, no, the drinking alcohol at an amusement park is not a civil right.   That right is no more sacred than my right to eat a cheeseburger—which violates Jewish kosher laws*, since it mixes meat with milk—in  a Jewish deli.    (Far from resenting that limitation on my dining options, I revel in it.  It's wonderful.  Jews should have places where they can observe their religion's dietary rules without interference from the majority.)  A business is under no legal or moral obligation to serve alcohol.

Avoiding exposing families to inappropriate dress and behavior
As a father of a 3 month-old girl, I find myself increasingly able relate to those Muslims who--like many Christian and Jewish parents--must ceasely work to limit their children’s exposure to behavior or dress that they consider indecent, but I think this approach while theoretically appealing is out of touch with reality in this case.  Without getting into the impossibility of preventing children from witnessing things that one disapproves of—I’m reminded of the Buddhist tradition that the father of the the young Siddhartha futilely contrived to prevent him from coming to know the evils of human life through careful control of his environment.  Inevitably, he eventually discovered the universal hardships being hiding (aging, suffering and death) when he took a walk outside the city gates without his handlers.—this approach rests on the assumption that such vices are unknown among Muslims, which anyone who’s been to the ISNA bazaar lately knows is a rather optimistic view.  Unless one is ready to mandate burkas and thobes for all, artificially separating Muslims from others doesn’t solve that problem.

A far wiser approach, in my estimation, is to grudgingly accept as inevitable some uncomfortable moments and be ready to transform them into opportunities to teach one’s children about Islam and Islamic values. I would also contend that the long term benefits for children of interacting with different kinds of people at an early age in safe, controlled environments far outweigh any likely negative affects.  Keeping our children sealed in a bubble is not the answer.  Better to constructively shape their exposure to other ways of living and thinking while they are young rather than allow them to discover it all on their own when they are older and out of our control.

Creating a social space where Muslims feel safe post-9/11
Some Muslims feel, quite understandably, unsafe in today's climate of rampant Islamophobia, but the solution to this is to organize and support one another, not to exclude others arbitrarily.   There's safety in numbers, and declared "Muslim Day" at an amusement park is guarateed a whole lot of Muslims without artificially gerrymandering the attendence. 

There are numerous weighty arguments against having a Muslim-only day.  Here are a few:

It's chum in the water for Islamophobes. 
This sends a message to fellow citizens that Muslims reject those around them.    Of course, that is not what's really happening (at least for most people involved), but that's the end result politically today.  Especially given how unusual such an arrangement is today. 

It encourages dysfunctional attitudes in the community. 
This reinforces the message peddled by reactionaries and pehndus (Urdu: "redneck") that it is haram for Muslims to participate in the social and civic life in the West.

It isolates Muslim women. 
Let's face it:  A major if not the driving force behind these kinds of arrangements is sexist neo-Victorian attitudes among some Muslims that treat Muslim women by a completely different standard from Muslim men.  These attitudes are religiously unjustified and rooted in a perception of society that no longer exists just about anywhere (whether in the West or in the Muslim world).   

If innocent day-to-day social interactions between Muslim boys and non-Muslim girls don't pose a dire threat to the Ummah's survival, neither do those of Muslim girls with non-Muslim boys.  And if we're not talking about boys or girls--if we're talking about adults--then mind your own business.

Most Muslim women do not live any kind of purdah from the world around them, but the minority that do are the ones most likely to be harmed by community events that implicitly validate dysfunctional and utopian norms which discourage women from developing the practical and social skills required to function in modern society.

Community events need to be structured in such a way that that they respect Muslims' needs and legitimate preferences without catering to illegitimate ones or compounding existing social problems. Leaders need to draw a line between the understandable concerns of privacy and modesty on the part of rank and file Muslims--some of whom are recent arrivals who are still acclimating to Western life--and harmful cultural practices wrongfully being passed off as "Islamic" values.  Most importantly, the a minority must not be allowed to impose its hangups on the rest of us.

Finally, it is important to note the very different social context for Muslims in the UK from the USA (which recently had its own Six Flags Muslim Adventure Day).  While I still consider such an approach mistaken in the USA, it is less of infinitely less concern here due to the far more successful integration of Muslims into American life (as The Economist insightfully noted recently, "the United States has a substantial Muslim population which on the whole seems pretty comfortable there, and has produced some of the world's best Islamic thinkers.") than in Europe.  Today's American social and political landscape is certainly not free of prejudice, discrimination and exclusion against Muslims, but by and large American Muslims are not struggling against the terrible demons, internal as well as external, as their British (and French and Danish) counterparts.  Consequently, the risk of separatism resulting from such occurences on American soil is minute by comparison.

[*] While they are strikingly similar in spirit and detail, the rules of Kashrut (for kosher meat) in Judaism[are considerably more complex than the corresponding rules for Zabiha/halal meat in Islam.

A critical difference that would make my life as a dairy fiend hard were I to convert to Judaism--probably for the jokes, as in the classic "Seinfeld" episode--is the strict ban on eating eating meat with dairy.  It's a major no-no, as bad as pork.

Just for kicks, next time you're in a predominately Jewish area try going into a kosher delicatessen or restaurant and asking for a cheeseburger.  Or eat a burger and then try to order a glass of milk.  Your request will be politely refused, unless they've gotten around the problem by using soy based products.   

Some trivia for my esteemed Jewish readers (All two of 'em! ;-) ) picked up from Rabbi David Telushkin's wonderful Jewish Literacy:  Did you know that the Torah only bans eating meat and drinking milk in that order?  So technically one can drink milk and then eat meat.  As you know better than I this, would be risky in practice--it would be too easy to accidentally violate the rule--so the ban is understandably applied  in both directions.

Update (2006-07-07): Made a number of additions and stylistic tweaks.

Also incorporated Indigo Jo's excellent scoop that attendence to the event was not formally speaking limited to Muslims.  This changes the political angle somewhat--and provides yet another example of an over-the-top charge of Muslim extremism concocted by the overactive imaginations of bigots--but it doesn't really change the underlying issues as I see them.  Even with the distributors at the masjid allowing non-Muslims to purchase tickets the basic problem remains that a barrier to non-Muslim attendence is being erected that I would argue is both unwarranted and counterproductive.

Some background on the Dutch diversity volte-face

Haroon Siddiqui has written an interesting and informative article on the evolution of Dutch attitudes towards immigrants and Muslims.  He also argues that the pendulum is swinging back.

TheStar.com - How the tolerant Dutch became so intolerant

For the last five years, the story from liberal Holland has been that it had gone from being multicultural to being xenophobic. It had shut the door on immigrants, warehoused its refugees in camps and turned on its own 1 million Muslims.

The latest news, yet to be noticed by the world, is that the Dutch have had enough of their own extremism and are inching back to the moderate middle.

KY Christians demanding schools teach "BC" and "AD"

From The Forward: Religious Groups Push Kentucky Schools To Use 'Before Christ'

Activists, along with the governor and other state politicians, have accused the State Board of Education of attempting to drive Christianity from the classroom through the use of secular notations, like BCE for "Before the Common Era," in place of religious ones, like B.C. for "Before Christ." The Western calendar counts years from the traditional birth of Jesus. The use of the notations B.C. and A.D. (anno Domini, Latin for "the year of the Lord") has been avoided for more than a century by religious Jews who use the notations BCE and C.E. That practice has been gaining currency in some parts of the country in recent years.

The Superfriends and multiculturalism

Those of you who grew up, as I did, watching "The Superfriends" will get a real kick out of this Flash animation of this brilliantly creative (not to mention downright intertextual) skit by Filipino comedian Rex Navarrete.  It's called "MARITESS vs the SUPERFRIENDS" and it casts some light on American race relations through the Superfriends' relationship with Maritess, their Filipino maid. [HT: Jeff Yang at SFGate.com]

Even if you're not familiar with this beloved classic cartoon, if you're an immigrant or of immigrant stock I suspect you'll be able to relate to Maritess' plight as a multicultural fish out of water.

Here's the intro from the website:

Did you ever wonder why whenever you'd watch "The Superfriends" on a Saturday morning way back in the day, that the Hall of Justice was kept so nice and clean?

Well, it was because of their Filipina maid who you never saw.  We've all heard about the plight of Overseas Foreign Workers leaving the Philippines in the thousands just to find jobs good enough to send money back to their families in the islands.  May of them still suffer disgraceful working and living conditions beyond our comprehension, oftentimes silently.

Even our own Superfriends can treat these domestic laborers very much in the same manner and this is one of their stories...

Speaking of Navarette, Jeff Yang writes the following in his article "Laughing Matters":

There's one Asian comic who bluntly rejects the notion that culture is a handicap: veteran stand-up Rex Navarrete, who'll be headlining at Cobb's Comedy Club in North Beach, May 11-16. "I just came to a point where I had to make a choice, and I decided that I was going to go ahead and say the F-word -- by which I mean Filipino. My stuff is blatantly Filipino. I'm not a stand-up comic who happens to be Filipino, I'm a Filipino who happens to be a stand-up comic. It's right up front. That's where it all comes from."

That fearlessness about wearing his identity on his sleeve is part of what makes Navarrete's comedy so brilliantly unique. "I may not get as much work as my counterparts, but it's my voice. I've stuck with it and I like where it's taken me," says Navarrete, whose sets focus on such distinctively Fil-Am subjects as food, Catholicism and, yes, immigrant accents (his most recent DVD is titled "Badass Madapaka").

His overt Pinoy pride has made him the object of cult devotion among audiences in the United States and, increasingly, in the Philippines. At the same time, his call-'em-as-he-sees-'em attitude has raised some hackles.

These are sentiments that I can relate to as an American Muslim. 

I admire Navarette's refusal to apologize for his pride in and consciousness of his ethnicity.  He's "ethnic" and proud, and he realizes the importance of his community developing its own sense of identity and brand of American-ness free of interference by the majority culture.

I think the way his self-consciously Filipino shtick resonates with fellow Filipinos is a testament to, contrary to all this nativist alarmism we hear from the Right, the often constructive influence of an increasingly prevalent social phenomenon which many--generally white--American intellectuals deride as "communalism"  or "ethnic separatism".   What some decry as the "balkanization" of America is in actuality, I would argue, simply America's long-overdue embrace of multi-culturalism.  It is America's increasing responsiveness to the needs of all Americans rather than those who happen to belong to the majority culture, and I think it's a good thing all around.

To effectively discuss their community's concerns and challenges, members of minority groups must speak amongst themselves freely without fretting about whether mainstream observers will understand or approve of their discourse.  You build your community's infrastructure and internal debate first and then dialogue with others.   Things like this are part of that process.

Anyway, speaking of the Superfriends, my first exposure to the side-splittingly funny and now world-famous comic Dave Chappelle, was an absolutely hysterical skit he did years ago on MTV's "The Half-Hour Comedy Hour" show.  Within seconds, I knew this was a riotously funny and creative comic who was going places. 

The skit's high point was Chappelle's arguments for why Aquaman was really a downtrodden black superhero.  How else, he asks, do you explain Aquaman getting such lame superpowers and getting the worst, most undignified job (e.g., while Superman saves the world by punching asteroids out of the sky, Aquaman's stuck herding fish)?  The Man's keeping Aquaman down...

As usual, the best comedy seems to mine race relations.

And we won't even get into the few cheesy, stereotypical non-white superheros who were allowed to make a brief appearance once every 10 episodes or so.  The only black character, Black Vulcan, "grew up with his parents in the rough Metropolis neighborhood called Suicide Slum."  Enough said.  And then there was Apache Chief--the guy with the pony tail who got really tall and who you half expected to sell you a cigar?  As one website puts it, "Apache Chief was one of many embarrassing efforts to give the Superfriends a multi-cultural flavor."

Things are better now in some ways, but now you have the curse of Benneton-style tokenism in pop culture, whose sickly sweet prejudice far more insidious and ultimately harmful.

I think the only solution is for minorities to make (and support) their own cultural programming.  That's why it's important for comics like Navarro, Azhar Usman,  etc., to stick to their roots rather than keep it "accessible".