This is the other way that the bigots poison the whole discussion. Over and over, since the Sept. 11 attacks, Muslim leaders have been challenged to denounce radical Islamism, and then to denounce it again, and then to denounce it some more. Prove you aren't responsible for this thing you didn't do. Are you with us or against us? Well? Are you with us or against us? When "us" includes Newt Gingrich and Orly Taitz and Pam Geller, what's a Muslim to do?Islamophobes have, in effect, asserted the right to define what it means to be a "good" Muslim. Among other things, you're expected to speak out loudly and publicly against any terrorist act committed by any Muslim anywhere. You're expected to assent cheerfully to arbitrary profiling, to dispense with any outward display or symbol of piety, and generally to "refudiate" anything that might make some non-Muslim somewhere feel vaguely uncomfortable.
Of course, since the definition of a "good" Muslim is subject to pretty much constant change based on whatever Islamophobes happen to be freaking out about at the moment, there's no satisfying these demands. Which is sort of the point, I suppose. There's simply no way for North American Muslims to prove, definitively, that they're not bent on imposing sharia or forcing Western women into burqas. And even if they could furnish proof -- well, that would just be part of the plot.
There's nothing new or unique about the anti-Muslim bigotry that has lately been running rampant. But it is profoundly troubling that we're letting ignorant, nativist yahoos (and the opportunistic politicians who love them) dictate the terms of debate on issues such as the Cordoba House and the assimilation of immigrant communities. And it's shameful that pundits like Ross Douthat and Charles Krauthammer afford the bigots intellectual cover.
No comments:
Post a Comment