Is it my imagination, or do we witness a continual stream of events and stated opinions which cause loud protest from the Muslim community and which then demand apologies from the author or for that matter from anyone else who might wish to apologise on their behalf? I presume that such Muslim protests are representative of the Muslim community - at least, I don't hear counter-protests or Muslim proclamations of "not in my name".
A key value of our culture is freedom, and, stemming from that, (I should like to think) a certain liberal outlook. In principle, then, people should be free to dress as they like. And, if they really want to, women may wear a veil in daily life that completely hides their face and hence their identity. But at the same time, it should be understood that freedom and liberal values can have consequences and limitations. The obvious general limitation is that a person's behaviour should not be dangerous, threatening or otherwise seriously inconvenient towards others. Regarding other consequences, it should be accepted that certain behaviour may result in practical problems for the person concerned - problems that result from that behaviour and which then put the onus on the individual to solve them (if desired) and are not the responsibility of others.
The veil is a case in point. Not a problem? Of course it is! You only have to think about the employment possibilities for a woman who insists on wearing a veil to see that. What could she do? A call centre telefonist is about the only feasible possibility I can think of (assuming the headset fits under the clothing). And, I'm sorry, but I couldn't hold a serious face-to-face conversation with someone who hides her face in this way. Comparisons with telephone or e-mail conversations are fatuous - we employ these media subject to their respective limitations and expect a face-to-face conversation to be just that, not face-to-veil. Comparisons with other clothing choices are equally fatuous - we are talking here about a very specific choice with a very specific consequence. So in my view, anyone has the right to wear a veil that hides the face but that person must accept the consequences. It is a choice that effectively prohibits normal participation in (our) society. It seems obvious to me that such a person has little possibility for social interaction. Yet a visit to one's local MP would indicate a desire to participate nevertheless. This, to me, creates a social dilemma - one where the onus is on the wearer of the veil to resolve the dilemma and to conform to social norms.
There is a wider issue; that of social integration - the integration of immigrants in the society of the host country. It's largely a question of adaptation. True, in accordance with good liberal values, we should not only tolerate but welcome differences and diversification. Even so, whilst this should happen in a spirit of give and take, there is surely an obligation on the immigrant community to adapt where necessary to appropriate native norms. "When in Rome..." Most people surely would consider it going too far if immigration of people from other cultural backgrounds were to mean in practice the displacement and replacement of the native culture. And it is surely undesirable for all parties that certain elements live their lives isolated from the rest.
Some Muslims may assert that their culture and religion are better. Quite aside from the possibility that they may be right in certain respects, I do nevertheless find it a highly hypocritical stance to take when one considers why these immigrants come to our country in the first place. The vast majority are what we call economic migrants. Whilst western society and culture are by no means perfect, many of its core values go hand-in hand with the economic prosperity and welfare that attracted the immigrants here. When the peoples and regimes of their countries of origin call the west the great satan and otherwise express hatred and malice towards us, the explicit or implicit backing of or sympathy for such views by immigrant Muslims is also surely brazen hypocrasy. Surely anyone has the right then to ask what they are doing in our country and whether perhaps, if that's how they feel, they might then think of emmigration to a "better place". Deep down I want to welcome these people. And we should take their feelings of alienation seriously. But when they complain about integration issues and look to us to rectify the situation, I feel to a great extent that we should be asking them: what are you proposing to do about it?
What is also hypocritical in the standpoint of many Muslims regarding integration, is the fact that if the situation were reversed - a westerner establishing himself temporarily or permanently in one of the typical countries of origin of our immigrants - I think we can assume that this immigrant would very much be expected to adapt to local norms and culture. I doubt whether any claims of 'alienation' or complaints regarding integration would find a sympathetic ear with the general populace.
What Muslims should also realise is that their grossly disproportionate reactions (possibly from a minority) contribute greatly to the alienation they complain of. The reaction, for instance, to cartoons appearing in the Danish press. The wrath of Muslims was even directed at governments failing to condemn the Danish press strongly enough! The storming of embassies, including the use of Molotov cocktails, is a grotesque overreaction. How can such people expect to be taken seriously? And also I shall never forget the images of Muslims dancing in the streets on news of the 9/11 attack. Unspeakably obscene!
Regarding the strong reactions to police investigation of Muslim folk, that is also an inconsistency of perception. It is just not conceivable that, if a westerner were to be arrested on suspicion of a crime in one of their countries, either the local population of westerners or the people back home would be 'up in arms' and protesting about the event solely on the basis that the person concerned was a Christian. It simply wouldn't happen. Why then do Muslims react so? Why is every such event taken so personally by such large numbers? On the whole, when a westerner is arrested in some 'exotic' land, there may be some protest from immediate family or expression of concern at government level, but then usually through 'diplomatic channels'.
The foregoing tacitly assumes that we are talking of first-generation immigrants. Curiously though, whilst 'new arivals' could be expected to experience the most problems, I suspect that my remarks are applicable in the vast majority of cases to second or third generation Muslims. This would seem to suggest that first-generation immigrants have for a large part settled in well, made an effort to adapt (or at least tolerate our 'strange ways') and so on, and that it is their children and grandchildren who seem increasingly to be experiencing problems - and that whilst one might expect that they grow up with an intimate knowledge of and respect for our culture. If I am correct in this, it creates an even more disturbing picture, for it suggests that Muslims growing up in our country are reverting to their parents' culture and apparently rejecting the culture of the host country. It is disturbing because it represents a deliberate choice rather than an unavoidable cultural 'burden'. Indeed, the veil issue supports this picture - the people concerned are young women who seem to have 'suddenly decided' that this is their interpretation of the Qur'an. To this extent they appear to be turning against the native culture and doing so quite deliberately. Again, very disturbing - and the veil is a relatively innocent and minor issue. It is a sort of self-alienation. What other sorts of behaviour might this lead to? It is, to my mind, all the more reason to hold Muslims to account rather than allowing them to emotionally blackmail the rest of society into being apologists for their own culture.
The latest overreaction (March 2007) of course is the British - Iranian stand-off concerning the supposed straying into Iranian waters by British marines. Even if it is true that the ingression took place - which on the face of it seems pretty unlikely - what a grotesque overreaction it is! What a heinous crime! The local population evidently has been stirred into forming a stone-throwing mob outside the British Embassy in Teheran and shouting "Death to Israel" (whatever they have to do with it) and "Death to England". Anybody would think we have bombed their capital city rather than committed that minor transgression which surely is trivial in the extreme. What threat did it represent? If they really were in Iranian waters, what was wrong with a (friendly?) warning? Instead the thing is being blown up out of all proportion by the Iranians in what, at an individual level, would be regarded by reasonable folk as the most extremely childish bahaviour. Of course, in reality the instigators of the Iranian action are presumably playing some kind of game for their own ends. Nonetheless, it's silly, uncivilised behaviour and does them no credit.
I feel drawn to comment on this short film made by, or on behalf of, the Dutch right-wing politician Geert Wilders and made available on the internet 28/03/2008. I hestitate nevertheless to make it a separate document because I don't want to give it a higher profile than maybe is appropriate.
In essence, one can say that the film presents a number of hard facts pertaining to Islam and the Qur'an, expresses concern about them and questions the wisdom of allowing any further penetration of this religion in Dutch society. To that extent I find it reasonable. And as to whether the film should be considered as "shocking", I think not - not really. It is, after all, a rendering of images we have all seen before. The power, perhaps, of this film is that all these images, together with some interesting quotations from the Qur'an and the rantings of certain Imams are brought together in a single hard-hitting sequence of 15 minutes or so.
Why do it? (I mean make such a film.) Well, clearly the images together with the quotations create a disturbing picture and raise many questions (or maybe, not so much many questions, as a few very important questions). Wilders himself says he wants to provoke discussion. Frankly, that's exactly what I would hope comes out of the film. Incidentally, it was typical that emotional condemnations were coming from all directions (including other Dutch politicians) well before anyone had actually seen the film - a huge forore based on nothing but hearsay. Once people had actually seen the film, opinions were much more measured.
One line of criticism is of course always going to arise with something like this, and that is: it is tarring all Muslims with the same brush; implying that the extreme ideas and behaviour alluded to apply to all Muslims alike. In as far as that is the interpretation, then I would say of course that is a reasonable criticism. I will and can gladly believe that a majority of Muslims would have nothing to do with the sorts of ideas and actions portrayed.
Having said that though, I think that's not really the point. It was possible to make the film because the events seen really did happen; they really were, as far as the perpetrators were concerned, in the name of Islam or Allah; the quotations from the Qur'an (for instance, saying that believers would please Allah by cutting the throats of non-believers until none was left standing) are, I presume, genuine; and likewise the video footage of speakers, presumably Imams, preaching bloodthirsty retribution to crowds of people were true happenings. And it all surely leaves a case to be answered. To my mind, it is then not sufficient for Muslim leaders to say that the film is not representative of the majority of peace-loving Muslims. Frankly, that is side-stepping the issue a little too easily. What is required is a deeper discussion that is sufficient to reassure 'non-believers' - or not, as the case may be. The discussion should specifically address the concerns: can the background to the bombings be explained in such a way that we need not fear repetitions, at least, not disproportionately from Muslim or Islamic sources? Can we confront those quotations from the Qur'an and either reassure people, somehow, that they are not to be interpreted literally (?) or else find a way to expunge them? And what is the real influence of those who preach bloodthirsty violence? Can they be marginalised or expelled? Probably, these are difficult questions, but they need to be tackled and to the satisfaction of society at large, otherwise we have a big problem.
Simply sweeping such questions under the carpet is not satisfactory because it leaves us all living with a real threat hanging over our heads. The film demonstrates, surely, how real. But it is a certain abiguity from the Muslim community that has bothered me these last years. We get pronouncements that violence is not to be condoned - but then followed by an absence of real condemnation and even the furnishing of excuses claiming to 'understand' how people might be driven to such acts. And it's not because Muslim folk just happen to be the sort of people who don't easily voice protest. When it's a case of them feeling victimised or 'offended', we soon hear their voices. When Britain joined the US in Iraq, there were noisy protests in the streets of London, including ordinary British people carrying plackards saying "not in my name". How come we never hear Muslims protesting at the action of a muslim country? When are they going to say "not in my name"?