Of principles, dogs and veils
We Americans are very respectful of other people’s cultures. The old “ugly American” of 1950s stereotypes died on college campuses in the 1960s, to be replaced by the multiculturalist, PC American who would never dream of challenging the way in which another culture conducts itself. The most recent example of our American deference is the whole “Taxi driver at the airport” storm in Minneapolis. That was the one where the airport was prepared to set up a two tiered system to accommodate the fact that devout Muslims claimed alcohol and seeing eye dogs were unwelcome in their cabs, since any contact with these unclean things was violative of their religion. Fortunately (or so I think), the combination of logistics and protests had the airports backing down. In the week since that story has been floating around, I’ve had a few thoughts about it, which I present here, in no particular order.
I approve of people sticking to their principles. That Muslims don’t drink alcohol is fine with me. The thing is, though, if you stick to your principles, you’re supposed to make the sacrifices. In the case of Muslims distressed by having alcohol anywhere near them, the appropriate sacrifice would be for them to give up any jobs that bring them in contact with alcohol, even if giving up their work causes them inconvenience or financial hardship.
What happened in Minneapolis was topsy-turvey: First, the Muslims essentially argued that, because they don’t drink, we shouldn’t. That’s not standing up for a principle; that’s a minority imposing its religion on the majority. Second, rather than insisting that Muslims live by, and make some sacrifices for, their religious principles, the airport was perfectly willing to enter into a solution supporting the Muslim desire that we live by their principles. This matched set of conducts (they impose themselves on us; we accommodate them) is pure Dhimmitude, and achieved without the Muslims even having to fight the bloody battles Mohammed urged upon his followers.
Once the news about Minneapolis surfaced, we suddenly heard similar stories. The one that resonanted with me was the fact that Islamic taxi drivers have left blind people with seeing eye dogs standing at the curb because Muslims consider dogs unclean. I can understand that people who are afraid of or disgusted by dogs may not want them near — but, again, you don’t then become a licensed Taxi driver. You find different work. (Just as the British police officer who refused to guard Israelis should have been fired, not set to a task he found more to his liking.)
The dog stories thing got me thinking, though, about our willingness to abase ourselves to the Muslims’ increasing demands that we make the sacrifices for their principles, rather than that they make sacrifices for their own principles. It occurred to me with the dog thing that the Muslims’ weren’t even making religious demands, they were making a cultural demand.
It appears that the Koran doesn’t say anything about dogs being unclean or bad. Instead, the proscription against dogs comes from memoirs and commentaries, as well as a cultural disinclination towards dogs. So when those taxi drivers are leaving blind people stranded on roadsides, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mohammed, and everything to do with their not liking dogs.
Other Muslim practices that are undeserving of religious respect, but are merely cultural norms, are honor killings,* female circumcision, and the wearing of the veil. As to the last, a Time/Life book I have from the 1980s, before publishers became frightened of even mentioning Mohammed without the obligatory PBUH after his name, says that the veils are entirely unrelated to Mohammed’s religious leadership. Instead, they relate to Mohammed’s concerns that his myriad enemies would try to attack him by impugning his wives. His solution was to cover his wives up and lock them up.
Ultimately, the Koran is a somewhat mystifying document, especially because the chapters are arranged by length, rather than chronology. This means that some of Mohammed’s sayings are open to interpretation. Even the proscription against alcohol can be questioned, although I think the anti-alcohol interpretation has such dominance, and does relate back to the Koran, that it’s a legitimate religious principle. I therefore would not force alcohol on a Muslim, just as I, living in a pluralist society, think he has no business denying alcohol to me.
Where I think we’re being seriously flimflammed is by the way Muslims have insisted, not only that we honor genuine religious dictates, but also outdated, often inhumane, cultural norms. As to those, there is no reason for us to demand that, when they live in our culture, they abandon their more horrible norms (female circumcision, honor killings), and that we resist any attempt to have these norms, major or minor, foisted on us.
______________
*On the subject of honor killings, read this fascinating op-ed from 2002, which a Palestinian woman wrote in Swiftian fashion to challenge the rise of those killings in her community.
