Living in a city where I see veiled Moslem women driving mini-vans, it is easy to assume that Moslems in America are not a threat to our country. I grew up next to Arab Dearborn and so Moslems are not strange to me. Indeed, we've seen few attempts by Moslems here to plot terror attacks. I am heartened by this and continue to be. This reinforces what I am disposed to believe by my experience.
But it is disturbing that the article says that Moslems here are pulling apart from our society and so are potentially at risk of siding with the jihadis.
But what can the society as a whole do when this article says that some Moslems are reacting to the perceived non-Moslem mistrust by retreating to strict Islam. I have to wonder, what are they thinking? Says the article:
The men and women I spoke to -- all mosque-goers, most born in the United States to immigrants -- include students, activists, imams and everyday working Muslims. Almost without exception, they recall feeling under siege after Sept. 11, with FBI agents raiding their mosques and homes, neighbors eyeing them suspiciously and television programs portraying Muslims as the new enemies of the West.
Such feelings led them, they say, to adopt Islamic symbols -- the hijab , or head covering, for women and the kufi , or cap, for men -- as a defense mechanism. Many, such as Rehan, whom I met at a madrassa (religious school) in California with her husband, Ramy, also felt compelled to deepen their faith.
They feel under siege? Are they serious? If they were truly under siege--if they were truly viewed as enemies by our society and government--would Moslems really dare to make it more obvious they are Moslems? What a bunch of crap. After five years, there is no siege of Moslems in this country. And the fact that some Moslems feel safe enough to make it more obvious they are Moslem by embracing the symbols of their religion should show how ridiculous this claim is. But it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy if more Moslems pull back out of mistrust and pseudo fear of retribution. Or is the author cherry picking?
In the conclusion of the article, the author reinforces my fear that Moslems are the ones unable to distinguish between terrorists and Islam by failing to truly condemn terrorists who are Moslems:
It is too soon to say where the growing alienation of American Muslims will lead, but it seems clear that the factors contributing to it will endure. U.S. foreign policy persists in dividing Muslim and Western societies, making it harder still for Americans to realize that there is a difference between their Muslim neighbor and the plotter in London or the kidnapper in Baghdad.
The constant and increasingly tiresome refrains about the "religion of peace" that our leaders, up to and including the president, use to distinguish Islam in general from terrorists should make this claim obviously rubbish. It is almost impossible for a government to mention Islamic terror without prefacing the comment with something about how we all know Islam is a religion of peace. We constantly emphasize we fight terrorists and not Islam.
So tell me, just what part of our foreign policy is dividing Moslems from Western socieities? Fighting and dying to give Moslems in Afghansitan and Iraq democracy? Is this anti-Islamic? But I thought supporting tyrants was anti-Islamic? That was then, I guess. Was saving Moslems in Somalia from starvation anti-Islamic? Liberating Moslem Kuwait? Saving Moslems in bosnia from genocide? Saving Molsems in Kosovo from genocide? Giving billions of dollars to Moslem Egypt? Protecting Moslem Gulf states from Iran?
If simply fighting somebody who is our enemy is anti-Islamic simply because that enemy is made up of Moslems, is simply defending ourselves now anti-Islamic? And if so, aren't Moslems saying there is no difference between terrorists who are Moslems and Islam generally? In 1944, were German Americans upset that we were fighting Nazi Germany? German Americans seemed to have no problem seeing a difference between hating Nazis and seeing German Americans as Americans. I don't recall a reflexive retreat to extolling German traditions. Moslems today in America are not imprisoned for being Moslem; fired for being Moslem; denied benefits for being Moslem; or otherwise deprived of life or liberty because of being Moslem.
Japanese Americans would have been ecstatic to have been under the so-called siege that some Moslems today feel they endure, if this article is to be believed. And the Japanese Americans of 1942 reacted not with cries of "Banzai!" and worship of the emperor; but with enlistment in the United States Army to fight for our country. That was love of country, folks. To serve though society mistrusted them. The same could be said for African Americans who served their country despite segregation and a far more real siege of their lives. So don't even try to tell me that occasional worried glances directed toward a Moslem in traditional Islamic attire is a siege. If that was true, the Amish would be crashing buggy bombs into shopping centers. Let's not even talk about what Hari Krishnas would be doing in airports. Oh, and how about black-clad teenagers into the whole Goth thing? Tell me you don't stare at them in wonder.
But somehow, I am supposed to believe that a Saddam who slaughtered Moslems in the hundreds of thousands was not anti-Islamic but our destroying Saddam's regime is anti-Islamic. And trying to prevent the Ilsamic Sudanese government form killing black Moslems in Darfur is anti-Islamic, too.
American foreign policy decidedly does not in any way divide Moslems from the West. Indeed, those Moslems who refuse to accept that we rightly fight islamic terrorists are the ones who are unable to distinguish Moslem neighbors from terrorists.
Should these ordinary Moslems continue to display discomfort about fighting terrorists who are Moslems simply because the terrorsits are Moslems, the ordinary Moslems will have succeeded in dividing the West from Islam. And if our society ever agrees with them, these Moslems will discover what being under siege really means. Proudly displaying the symbols of their faith will not be a rational response to that world.
I truly hope we can avoid that future. As the article notes, we are far from having Moslems who view America as the enemy. But I'm not at all convinced that responsibility for preventing that possible dire future lies with our society in general rather than with peace-loving Moslems who live here. But again, is this a widely held view that the auhtor is describing or the author's view alone? And is it a trans-national belief that would oppose American policy if we were fighting back agasint attackers who are Hindus or Anglicans, too?
There is a difference between Islam and Islamic terrorists. The problem isn't whether the white, Christian residents of Des Moines, Iowa believe this--they do. The problem is whether the Moslem residents of Dearborn, Michigan believe it. Do they?
As I've come back to in this rant, the above interpretation of Moslems separating and becoming a fifth column could just be one author's view. My frustration could easily just be about his interpretation, as I note especially about his conclusion in the second quoted passage. This posting (again, via Instapundit) disagrees and doesn't think that Moslem identity means proto-terrorists are being created in America. And he has a great point. Being worried is rather normal under the circumstances (And this doesn't mean I think they are in danger of prison camp futures). Are Moslems as a group any more upset than your average Kos Kid, DUer, or MoveOn.org fan? So what if the writer could get some good scary quotes? That can't be tough to do. And the poster says Moslems put up with the added scrutiny with some faith in our society in the long run. If IRA bombers were behind the controls on 9/11, I'd really have to suck it up that "Dunn" is on a watch list. I wouldn't like it. But I wouldn't be inspired to become an IRA terrorist because people looked suspiciously at my pasty white face.
The question is whether those individuals quoted in the article are representative of all or even many Moslems in America. In America, we are free to be unhappy with our government and express it peacefully. The fact that there isn't violent jihadi extremism rampant--or even budding, it seems--in our Moslem community is a major factor in arguing against the idea that Londonistan is brewing here.
So I come full circle. I worry about Moslems here mistaking normal vigilance for persecution--perhaps incited by the likes of the WP article to believe they are persecuted. And I worry about a replay of how we treated Japanese-Americans in World War II. I don't think either is likely, but I worry. And I worry a great deal that ordinary Moslems don't condemn what is done in their name--out of fear or some level of sympathy--by Moslem terrorists.
But I have faith that in America, which has absorbed so many immigrants from different cultures, that Islam is just one more culture. Why should Islam be any different in the face of our society's power to give hope and inspire the allegiance of immigrants to our ideals of freedom and personal liberty?
Perhaps the sight of mini-van driving veiled Moslem women in my city should be what sticks with me, after all. Really, according to al Qaeda, those Moslem women and the Moslem husbands, brothers, and fathers who don't stop such behavior have chosen sides--our side.
UPDATE: Strategypage both bolsters my view about our ability to absorb Moslem immigrants and my nagging worry that it might not be possible.
First the encouraging part:
The enthusiasm for Islamic terrorism, among some Moslem migrants in Europe and North America, is not unprecedented. In fact, it's rather common, under the proper conditions. First, you need migrants from a country or region that is undergoing unrest. Such was the case with Ireland and Italy in the 19th century, when millions of Irish and Italian immigrants came to the United States. Many of these migrants got involved in violent political organizations, inspired by the continuing battle for freedom (or whatever) back home. The Irish had a resurgence of these pro-terrorist attitudes in the 1970s, which went on for several decades. Small groups of American Jews joined terrorist groups in the 70s and 80s, in response to the first wave of Islamic terrorism. Armenian, Tamil (Sri Lanka) and Sikh (Indian) migrants to the United States were involved with international terrorism during the last few decades of the 20th century.
This sympathy wears off with the children and grandchildren of the immigrants. One of my grandfathers--the Irish one--was convinced we went to war in 1941 for British and not our interests. That didn't stop my dad from enlisting in the US Navy in 1945. Nor does it mean I ever supported IRA terrorism. And other immigrant groups have been pulled by loyalties to the old country.
But one unknown nags at me:
Unfortunately, it's not easy to get rid of these bad attitudes. Typically, it takes three or more generations to get rid of them. That is becoming more difficult because of satellite TV channels. News and entertainment from the old country is thus easily available, and makes it easier to resist adapting to your new surroundings. That is something new, and the consequences are not yet known.
I'd feel better if our public schools--as was one of their original purposes--inculcated a sense of Americanism in our immigrant children.
