Last week, a group of 500 Sikh truck drivers in Canada threatened to file a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in an attempt to challenge a "hard hat" policy instituted by the Canadian Pacific Railways (CPR) . The policy, as described in a company memo:

Please be advised that as per CPR's Safety Policy, all drivers required to enter CPR property as well as customer locations are required to wear a hard hat. There are no exceptions to this policy.

We understand that this might be a concern for some drivers who are required to wear turbans as part of their religious doctrine… There is zero tolerance at CPR with regards to this requirement.

In objecting to this policy, a large group of Sikhs noted that there had been no injuries justifying the hart hat rule and that Sikhs even served in the British Army with turbans.

A Canadian human rights commission found that a Sikh had been discriminated against in a similar situation, however the Supreme Court of Canada, in Bhinder v. Canadian National Railways, 1985 CarswellNat 144, 9 C.C.E.L. 135 (S.C.C.), overturned the decision, ruling that employers do not infringe upon human rights law when they ban Sikhs from wearing turbans on the job "for genuine business reasons." The court continued:

The hard hat rule did not lose its character as a bona fide occupational requirement solely because it had the effect of discriminating against (Bhinder) … once established as a bona fide occupational requirement for employees in (CN’s) coach yard, the hard hat rule was not a discriminatory practice within the meaning of the act, despite its affect on (Bhinder.)

Reports are now surfacing that CPR has "agreed to negotiate with the drivers over the wearing of turbans versus hard hats." Accordingly, the "Sikh truck drivers will not file a complaint." Hopefully an amicable settlement can be reached between the two sides.

The Washington Post posted an interesting article on how several Muslim girls in the Washington, DC, area are able to, on one hand, remain faithful to the Koran's mandate that followers of Islam wear modest clothing, and on the other still feel attractive and beautiful in modern, American society. The author of the article, Sandhya Somashekhar, follows a few girls as they pick clothes in a mall, discussing how they balance their religion with the contemporary demands of Western fashion.

Perhaps most intriguing is Somashekhar's interview with Rika Prodhan, a 22 year-old Muslim who decided, after considerable thought, to trade her "form-fitting outfits" and exposed "cascading hair " for a hijab, or head scarf. The decision resulted from Prodhan's intrepretive understanding of the Koran, which she felt was unambiguous in its guidance that "the body, including the hair, should be well covered."

In addition, Prodhan realized that her actions would change how the world viewed her: adopting a hijab was a "big step that she knew would forever change the way she was perceived in public."

"I tried to find every reason not to wear it," she said. "But I came to the conclusion it was like listening to your parents. We may not know the wisdom behind it now, but we'll realize it later."

Her parents, she said, actually were troubled by the decision, fearful that she was becoming "too Muslim" and isolating herself from mainstream society.

The implication is that the physical attire in itself may isolate a Muslim with a hijab (or by extension, a Sikh with a turban), regardless of the active participation of the Muslim in Western society. In other words, the question becomes whether a Muslim with a hijab or Sikh with a turban is per se isolated from mainstream society.

Columnist Jane Eisner responds to the following sentence, uttered on an American radio station: "It's so hot the Muslim men are taking the towels off their heads to wipe their faces!" Eisner notes:

The bigotry in that remark was matched by its ignorance. Not all Muslims are Arab, and not all Arabs wear the headdress known as the keffiyeh. And it's an entirely different faith, Sikhism, whose adherents wear turbans.

Such subtleties are too often lost on the average American, and despite all the fine words and noble intentions uttered since the 2001 terrorist attacks, the continued lack of knowledge about and respect for Islam and other religions is appalling.

Eisner goes on to argue that "[t]rue pluralism demands that we acknowledge our differences as well as celebrate what we have in common" (emphasis added). The distinction between tolerance (a passive acknowledgment of the existence of minority groups) and pluralism (the active engagement of minorities such that a climate of mutual respect may develop) has been made convincingly by my colleague, Valarie Kaur.

Eisner closes with the following thought:

We can respond to an ever-more diverse world by digging in and shutting out, or we can respond to it with the strength of character demanded of true pluralism.

Our choice.

An Arab-American man received a credit card offer addressed to "Palestinian Bomber." The unsolicited offer came from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the number two bank in the United States, and arrived at the mailbox of Sami Habbas, a 54-year-old Arab-American from Corona, California. "Palestinian Bomber" was used "in both the address field and salutation, as well as on the envelope."

To its credit, J.P. Morgan Chase apologized and blamed the gaffe "on a list it purchased from an unidentified vendor." Spokesman David Chamberlin conducted damage control:

Although no Chase employee was involved in creating this information, we are embarrassed by this incident and regret that our automatic screening procedures did not catch this erroneous information.

As a company that is fully dedicated to respecting our card members, prospective customers and employees, we offer our sincere apologies to anyone who might have been offended by this matter.

Habbas, who "has lived in the United States for 51 years and served in the U.S. Army," said of the incident:

this is indicative of the growing rise of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment in this country, where everyday peaceful and law-abiding citizens are being harassed based solely on their ethnicity or their religion.

On Saturday, C-SPAN aired a town hall meeting in which the media's treatment of Asian-Americans, particularly during times of war, was discussed. One of the panelists was Jaideep Singh [pictured], co-founder of the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund. As part of his remarks, Singh identified several problems with the media's presentation of Sikhs and Sikh-Americans during the post-9/11 backlash. Singh noted, in part:

1. The mainstream media failed to present an honest picture of the backlash in the days immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In fact, the media presented opinions, most notably from then-New York major Rudy Guiliani, that the backlash was minimal and being held in check. In other words, the mainstream media offered the public material that differed from what was actually happening to Sikhs.
   
2. The mainstream media failed to explain to the public that 99.9% of turbaned individuals are Sikhs, not Muslims. The absence of explanatory information on Sikhs, which could help allay the ignorance fueling the backlash itself, is evidenced by fact that the words "Sikh" and "Sikh-American" remained missing from the headlines of news stories describing the backlash. In other words, the Sikh-American experience after 9/11 was marginalized to an article's fringe, even though they suffered the brunt of the post-9/11 backlash.
   
3. Ironically and unfortunately, Sikhs were being targeted because of their disctinctive appearance and dark skin, however in those articles that did discuss instances relating to Sikhs, the maintream media failed to include pictures of the Sikh victims. For example, those stories covering the murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi on September 15, 2001, who was killed because of his long beard, turban, and dark skin, generally failed to include his picture.

A description of the town hall can be found here.

Video of the program can be viewed here.

In response to arguments that American law enforcement should racially profile young Muslim men [see e.g., here and here], sociologist Andrew Beveridge explains that "even if the New York Police Department wanted to do so -- and it has said clearly that it doesn’t -- profiling young Muslim males is virtually impossible.... They are not racially or physically distinct."

Consider, for example, this chart showing the countries with the highest Muslim population. "China ranks ninth. Russia ranks 18th.... [S]ome Chinese New Yorkers may be Muslim, while some Indonesians may not be." Moreover, "There are 231,000 New Yorkers who claim heritage from these 25 countries.... Some are black, some are Asian; more than 50 percent are white."

Based on his presented evidence, which is shown more dramatically in the article itself, Beveridge concludes:

Profiling by origin is the sort of policy that seems appealing during periods of stress and hysteria, but in hindsight is almost always seen as a mistake – such as the internment of Japanese-American during World War II. In this case, however, it wouldn’t even be possible.

Rob Marris, Member of Parliament and Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for UK Sikhs, argued why Sikhs should be protected after the terrorist attacks of 7/7:

I am very concerned that the Sikh community and other minority communities should not become the target for hate attacks following the dreadful bombings in London on the July 7.

The UK Sikh community have expressed their deep sadness and concerns along with others at the terrible atrocities perpetrated by the terrorists, both in London, New York and elsewhere in the world.

Since September 11, 2001 there have been several attacks suffered by the visible Sikh community including attacks on Sikh gurdwaras.

I roundly condemn such attacks, and attacks on other minority communities, and would ask the police to be vigilant and to treat any threats against minorities very
seriously.

"As politicians reach out to Muslim communities to secure their integration with rather than isolation from mainstream society, a growing number of businesses across Europe are doing the same," according to an article in the Financial Times. For example:

• Nokia "has introduced the Ilkon i800, a mobile phone that directs users toward Mecca and tells them when to pray."
• Heineken "has decided to roll out the nonalcoholic malt drink Fayrouz internationally."
• Lloyds TSB "is the latest bank to introduce Islamic banking services"
• GlaxoSmithKline "secured a statement from the country's Muslim Law Council that the company's Ribena and Lucozade soft drinks are halal"
• Sony "is supporting the British launch of PlayStation Portable with an exhibition of Arabic art this month.

In a related story, an IKEA branch is planning to design hijabs [pictured] for its Muslim employees.

The article notes that the "internationally-acclaimed company... was making [an] effort to accommodate Muslims in its workforce."

Police in Columbia, Missouri are stating that an attack on a Middle Eastern man was not a hate crime due to "that the assailants were motivated because of race."

According to police reports, "Haitham Alramahi, 22, was walking home about 2 a.m. when he was struck by a car.... He was in the crosswalk, but the car did not stop at the stop sign. He said four or five men got out of the car."

“I thought they were going to help me,” said Alramahi in an interview. Instead, they shouted racial epithets at him, telling him to go back to Iraq, he said."

The police argued, "simply using racist language during an assault does not automatically mean the crime was originally perpetrated because of race."

The past few days, The Washington Post's op-ed section has admirably devoted considerable attention to racial profiling and the multiculturalism question in Britain. Today, for example, two of the four op-eds examine these subjects.

Columnist William Raspberry responds to those who argue in favor of racial profiling. He firsts sets forth what the proponents of racial profiling are saying:

After all, they argue, weren't the Sept. 11 terrorists all young Muslim men? Isn't it likely that the next terrorist attack will be carried out by young Muslim men? So why waste time screening white-haired grandmothers and blue-suited white guys? Much more efficient to tap the shoulder of any young man who looks Muslim -- a category that covers not just Arabs but also Asians, Africans and, increasingly, African Americans.

Raspberry counters that, practically speaking, developing a coherent profile is impossible, as "young Arab men are fungible." As a result, "since Americans look all sorts of ways, a more sensible way of deciding who gets extra attention is behavior." In conclusion, Raspberry quips:

[W]e do know what [the terrorists] look like. They look like the 19 hijackers of Sept. 11, but they also look like Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla and -- don't forget -- Timothy McVeigh. Profile that.

Also in today's edition of the Post, Frances Stead Sellers addresses multiculturalism in Britain. She defines multiculturalism as "the... challenge of building community out of disparate populations with disparate traditions and disparate beliefs, all the while preserving and celebrating those disparities. "

Sellers argues that there is a fundamental difference between the United States and Britain, in that in America "every new immigrant can make America more American (as President Bush once argued), and where the founding philosophy and civic rituals were designed to create a citizenry out of the masses," whereas "European countries were established less deliberately -- largely on shared traditions, shared languages, shared histories and even shared genes." The result in Britain is a "deficit in civic ritual," which the British government has tried to correct in the past few years through, for example, the introduction of a national "Citizenship Day."

On Saturday, columnist Colbert I. King argues that the "massive failure of assimilation" that is seemingly "inconceivable in the United States" generally is occurring in American prisons: "the group within the African American Muslim community that is experiencing the most explosive growth is probably the least assimilated: black inmates." King contends that what has led to the many conversions to Islam is not "Americanization." As FBI director Robert S. Mueller III noted, the American prison system is "fertile ground for extremists who exploit both a prisoner's conversion to Islam while still in prison, as well as their socioeconomic status and placement in the community upon their release." King effectively argues that this "concern is no longer theoretical."

Law professor David Harris argues that, "The impulse to use a profile targeting young Muslim men may seem obvious in light of the bombings in London and elsewhere, but using these kinds of demographic factors in law enforcement, except as a description of a known suspect, would be a first-order strategic mistake." In particular, Professor Harris reasons, in part:

When we make appearance - looking like a young Muslim or Arab or South Asian - one of the criteria we use to decide who is suspicious, we lose what must be a total focus on behavior. This makes law enforcement officers less accurate in finding what they are looking for, as several studies have shown.

Using a profile against young Arab and South Asian Muslims destroys our ability to make use of our most important weapon against terrorists: intelligence. Intelligence is key to finding these killers before they reach the subway station or airport concourse, and the best possible source for intelligence about these zealots is our very own Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities.

The U.S. Department of State issued this press release in which the results of a panel discussion on Muslim-American Women were discussed. According to the State Department, "contrary to popular media perceptions, Muslim women do not feel discriminated against or dispossessed within the traditions of their faith."

For example, a Muslim-American woman noted that her "distinctive attire" has not hurt her career despite the concerns of her family. "On the contrary, she says, people began to respect her for her individuality and firm rooting in her faith." (Indeed, Muslim-American women are never disrespected or discriminated against in the U.S.)

The press release is a good read for those interested in learning what the government, or at least the panel convened by it, believes with respect to the compatibility of Islam with American culture, gender equity in Islam, and religious discrimination in the United States.

A PBS NewsHour feature story is on the efforts of the Muslim community in the United States to reach out to Muslim youth, in order to assuage "concerns about the vulnerability of American-born Muslim youth to recruitment by terrorist groups."

The Muslim community leaders interviewed understand there are "unique issues facing American-born Muslims struggling to balance the values of American society with the teachings of Islam." The question is squarely one of identity, one of being both sufficiently Muslim and American. Muslim activist Amin Al-Sarras admits that Muslim-American youth are "confused," but he goes on to argue that, at bottom, "There is no friction between American society and Islam."

The difficulty for these Muslim leaders is to strike this balance and to permit Muslim-American to feel as if they have an identity that isn't in conflict with Muslim principles but which satisfies the American mainstream.

Interestingly, Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, offers a thought as to how the next generation of Muslim-Americans can help the youth strike this balance: "We need Americans who were born here, who watched MTV and understand American culture to be Imams.... We need the authentic American Islamic voice. It's unique."

Since the revelation that the 7/7 bombers were "homegrown" terrorists, commentators have been debating whether or not America may be vulnerable to such attacks by American-Muslims.

Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, adds to the discussion by addressing the conditions that explain why homegrown terrorism is more likely in Europe, and the factors that, if left unattended, may exacerbate the possibility that Muslims in the United States will carry out a terrorist plot in their own backyard.

Al-Marayati explains that Muslims in Europe are more isolated, "partly because of the socioeconomic status of Muslim communities throughout Europe and partly because of self-imposed isolation," whereas American Muslims "are typically far more interested in integrating into mainstream society."

The author points out, however, that "many [American Muslims] live in a psychological ghetto caused by the lack of acceptance they feel from their neighbors and colleagues, especially in the post-Sept. 11 era." It may very well be true that this "psychological ghetto may prove the largest challenge in the war on terrorism."

To prevent American Muslims from becoming isolated, alientated, and vulnerable to radical clerics, Al-Marayati argues that the Muslim community must no longer be stigmatized and that the cooperative relationships between Muslims and the American government, particularly law enforcement, needs to be publicized.

Today, August 15, 2005, marks the 58th anniversary of India's independence from Britain. This is not an auspicious time for many in India, particularly Sikhs, who are still grieving over the Nanavati report, which named several government officials as being "very probably" involved in the massacre of over 4,000 innocent Sikhs in 1984.


Lost son : A Sikh father of men who were killed in the 1984 riots, cries during a demonstration near parliament in New Delhi as Sikhs protest against the findings of the Nanavati Commission. (AFP/Raveendran)
















A Sikh woman wipes her tear during a demonstration against Congress Party leaders implicated in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, in New Delhi, India, Friday, Aug. 12, 2005. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Thursday apologized for the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and stated that his government was committed to further probe into charges against all those implicated by the Nanavati report. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)

Henry Weinstein of the Los Angeles Times argues convincingly that U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts' "biggest impact on the high court could come in cases on wartime executive authority -- not a right to abortion." Even though "[t]here is no more important issue on the court's docket over the next few years than this one," it "has received little attention so far in the debate over Roberts' nomination."

The article points to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in which Roberts joined, holding that, in the words of Weinstein, 1) the administration may "use military tribunals to try those labeled 'enemy combatants' at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba," and 2) "those combatants had no right in U.S. courts to enforce provisions of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war."

Respected Georgetown Law Professor Neal K. Katyal, an attorney for Osama bin Laden's alleged bodyguard and driver, notes "No decision, by any court in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has gone this far" in respect of governmental authority in times of war.

Given the importance of the constitutional question and the consequences that a Supreme Court case may have on the war on terror and the rights of individuals, some have argued that senators should ask Judge Roberts about the issue. For example, a group of over 100 law professors and other legal scholars signed a letter urging senators to ask Judge Roberts ten questions, one of which is:

In Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of evacuating Japanese-American citizens on the West Coast from their homes during World War II. What lessons do you believe the Court should draw from Korematsu and the World War II experience?

Law professor Eric Muller, however, thinks that asking Judge Roberts about Korematsu would be a waste of time because the decision is almost universally recognized as one of the worst in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, professor Muller suggests that senators should ask the following question:

When the United States was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1942, the Army imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew along the West Coast for U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry, but no curfew anywhere in the United States for U.S. citizens of German or Italian ancestry. In Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), a unanimous Supreme Court held that the curfew did not violate the due process rights of the affected Americans.

Was Hirabayashi correctly decided?

The Associated Press offers this interesting article on the difficulties that the British government and police are having in balancing national security and civil liberties. The article artfully addresses the parallels between the British struggle with this balance and the American experiences fighting terrorism and protecting individual rights after 9/11.

In the same way that police and other authorities were granted more expansive powers after 9/11 to fight terrorism, certain proposals in Britain are calling into question whether individual rights are being sacrificed in the name of fighting potentail suicide bombers. These proposed British initiatives include:

Britain's police argue that authorities should be allowed to hold suspects without charge for as long as three months — rather than the two weeks now allowed under terrorism laws — because the global phenomenon requires time and expertise to combat.

Police also want a new law making it a crime to withhold information on computer encryption and the right to suppress what was described as inappropriate Internet usage.

Knight Ridder columnist Gaiutra Bahadur addresses "why experts say second-generation Muslims here are unlikely recruits for terrorist organizations."

Bahadur writes while observing a summer camp for mainly Muslim and Arab children. He argues that such camps are "part of a multicultural mechanism that allows Muslims here to strike a compromise between two worlds, even in the midst of a post-Sept. 11 backlash that has made that compromise harder." According to Bahadur, the camp attendees "mirror the Muslim population in the United States: They come from middle-class, suburban families who do not live sealed off in ethnic enclaves."

This setting is different from that facing Muslims in Europe. Bahadur notes, "The descendants of Muslim immigrants in Europe... continue to live in ghettos isolated by poverty, language, religion or national origin. " However, "American Muslims are better educated and wealthier than Americans as a whole."

Bahadur continues:

It's also much easier for residents of an enclave to feel they or their communities don't have a stake--or have been denied a stake--in their adopted country. That kind of alienation exists to a lesser degree among second-generation Muslims in the United States....

Finally, Bahadur states that pluralism is a cherished social value in the Unites States, whereas, for example, in France "Muslim girls can't wear a traditional head scarf at public schools. In the Netherlands, Moroccans are barred from nightclubs."

I am pleased to welcome into the fold three new contributors to the DNSI Blog.

First, we will be cross-blogging with ENSAAF, an organization whose mission is to "fight[] impunity for human rights violations committed in India. " ENSAAF is an authority on the human rights abuses carried out during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India. As DNSI is interested in international and historical contexts in which minority communities are subjected to mistreatment during national crises, DNSI will benefit greatly from ENSAAF's knowledge of the 1984 pograms.

We will cross-post entries by ENSAAF's bloggers, Jaskaran Kaur and Vanessa Pon. According to ENSAAF, Jaskaran:

has authored several seminal reports on human rights abuses in India, including Twenty Years of Impunity: The November 1984 Pogroms of Sikhs in India, and, as a contributing author, Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab, analyzing over 600 cases of extrajudicial execution and disappearance by Punjab's security forces. From 2003 to 2005, Kaur was the recipient of the Irving R. Kaufman Fellowship from Harvard Law School. In 2001, she went to Punjab on a Harvard Human Rights Summer Fellowship to study the role of the judiciary in handling habeas corpus petitions filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by families of the disappeared; her study was published in the Harvard Human Rights Journal. Kaur graduated with distinction from Yale College in 2000 and Harvard Law School in 2003.

And Vanessa is a:

student at UC Berkeley. Her majors are Economics and Political Economy of Industrial Societies. She is currently interning for ENSAAF and works on ENSAAF’s blog and newsletter.

Please also welcome Tracy Wells, a research associate at Harvard's Pluralism Project. Tracy has already been an invaluable resource to the blog. We look forward to her commentary. According to the Pluralism Project:

Tracy works with our Religious Diversity News, searching for articles to include and entering the international articles into the databse. She is also continuing research on interfaith organizations, which began in her first year at the project (2003) with a survey of interfaith groups in Boston, available in the online version of World Religions in Boston. Originally from Lexington, South Carolina, she earned a B.A. in English and religion from Furman University and conducted student affiliate research mapping religious diversity in South Carolina in the summer of 2003. She is currently a third year M.T.S. student at Harvard Divinity School, where she is a participant in the Program in Religion and Secondary Education.

In addition to posts from Jaskaran, Vanessa, and Tracy, the DNSI blog will feature entries from Valarie Kaur, and myself, Dave Sidhu. Valarie's entries will be cross-posts from her journal, "Into the Whirlwind."

The full text of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's speech to the upper house of parliament regarding the Nanavati Commission's findings on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots can be found here. Selected excerpts are reprinted below:

Mr. Chairman, sir, I must confess to you, at the very outset, that speaking on this occasion has meant a great emotional strain for me." [The death of Indira Gandhi was tragic.] What happened subsequently was equally shameful.

I have no hesitation in apologising not only to the Sikh community but the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood and what enshrined in our constitution. So, I am not standing on any false prestige. On behalf of our Government, on behalf of the entire people of this country, I bow my head in shame that such thing took place.

During the British times, it was the brave Sikh community, which developed the canal colonies of the erstwhile united Punjab which made Punjab the granary of India. With Partition the Sikhs suffered the grievous loss. Our community was divided into two parts. All of them were forced to migrate to this part of the Punjab; and I know hundreds of cases where people came to India with their clothes.... they converted that adversity into an opportunity to reconstruct, to rebuild their lives and rebuilt the life of our nation. And, we all know how a very deficit, poor, east Punjab state, once again emerged on the screen of India as a number one state in terms of per-capita income, as the state known for the start of the green revolution in our country.

I have interacted with hundreds and hundreds of Sikh young men who doubted, at that time, whether they had a place in building a prosperous united Indian nation. I went abroad and several young Sikh people -- students and teachers -- used to come to me with the same questions.

The Sikh community has regained its self-confidence.... Let us help the Sikh community to get out of that trauma of 1984.

The report is before us, and one thing it conclusively states is that there is no evidence, whatsoever, against the top leadership of the Congress party. That lie, which has over the last 21 years been used to poison the minds of the Sikh youth, stands nailed conclusively. There are, of course, individuals mentioned. The commission has not come forward with conclusive conclusions. These are in the realm of probabilities. [W]hosoever figures in the Nanavati Report -- and the commission has in its wisdom found it necessary to draw an adverse inference about their conduct or behaviour -- we will reopen those cases.

So, that commitment I have given..... within the ambit of law, whatever action we can take, we will reopen those cases also if the law of the land permits that.

[W]e are dealing with the past, the present and the future of a very brave community which has bold traditions, which has been a part of our national mainstream, which has contributed far above its proportionate share in our population, in the national freedom struggle, which has contributed, admirably, to the processes of social and economic development in our country, which have, as a result, made Punjab one of the most prosperous States of our country.

One of the most interesting topics of discussion following the terrorist bombings in London is whether multiculturalism poses a threat to British security, given the argument that the homegrown terrorism witnessed on 7/7 was a product of Muslim kids who were not sufficiently integrated into British society and were thus vulnerable to the preachings of Islamic radicals [see, previous posts here, here, and here].

For example, some contend that "multiculturalism is no longer the way forward and we must pursue integration in the UK."), while others counter that there was "no contradiction" between having a multicultural society and achieving integration.

The results of a new poll, conducted for the BBC, indicate that

• 62 percent of the general public and 87 percent of British Muslims surveyed had favorable views of multiculturalism
• one-third of the general public felt multiculturalism to be a threat
• 54 percent agreed that "parts of the country don't feel like Britain any more because of immigration

The Boston Globe contains this excellent article on the backlash after the London bombings. The article begins by discussing the experiences of Muslim community activist Muhammad Abul Kalam, who posted fliers with his number across London a day after the bombings, warning Muslims of an impending backlash. In return for his kindness, he received this text message:

'Muslim bastard... get out of the UK you Islamic parasite. You devil worshipers are killing people all over the world. Islam is pure evil!

Kalam says that the moderate Muslims in Britain "are being held collectively responsible for the murderous extremism of a few." The article continues with other examples of how the world has changed for some in Britain:

• Women have told of bus drivers refusing to let them on board unless they remove their hijabs, or head scarves
  
• Nearly every young Muslim has a story of dirty looks or words being thrown their way on buses and trains, of being stopped and searched, just because of the way they look, a practice which police have unabashedly explained is targeting people who fit the profile of attackers or those who might help them.
  
• Outside a mosque in Balham, South London, an old man sheepishly admitted that he had shaved his white beard and that he no longer wears a cap, thinking it will steer racists clear of him.
  
• Some young Sikh men, whose appearance leads some to mistake them for Muslims, have taken to wearing T-shirts that say, ''Don't Freak, I'm a Sikh."
  

Kalam contends that the Muslim community "isolated ourselves. My generation is changing that.... We are British, but we are also Muslim."

The Financial Times is reporting that "The first detailed study into hate crime against ethnic minorities was launched yesterday amid rising tensions caused by the London bomb attacks."

The research will be conducted by Victim Support, an organization that describes itself as an "independent charity which helps people cope with the effects of crime" and that "also works to promote and advance the rights of victims and witnesses." Peter Dunn, of Victim Support, said:

Hate crime has a destructive effect not just on victims but on whole communities. The government and the statutory services have begun to recognise it as a phenomenon but little is known about how individual victims are affected.

Part of DNSI's mandate is to study historical and international contexts that implicate the tension between equality and national order. With this in mind, we're commenting on the release of the Nanavati Commission report, which discusses the government's involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. (The riots took place after two Sikhs assassinated then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, on October 31, 1984, in retaliation for the military invasion of the Sikh's holiest shrine, the Golden Temple.) Over 4,000 Sikhs died in the riots. Not one killer has been prosecuted.

The report indicted several prominent leaders, including Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar, yet exonerated then-prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. Specifically, the report noted that there was "credible evidence" Tytler, a minister, was "very probably" involved in the incitement of the riots.

The government of India indicated that it was not in a position to prosecute anyone based on mere probabilities. However, Tytler resigned, as has Kumar. Tytler maintains his innocence, explaining that his resignation was tendered to save the party from further embarassment, not as a sign of moral culpability. Tytler also argues that he is a victim of a political conspiracy, rather than a legitimate player in the heinous killings of innocent Sikhs.

There appears to be direct evidence, though, of Tytler's material involvement in the riots:

Jasbir, who is in hiding, told Newsline he was willing to repeat that he saw Tytler goading a mob to go for the kill even if it costs him his life. His 2000 affidavit helped provide the panel “credible evidence” against the leader.

“I can die but will always say this. For 18 of my family died and Tytler’s hands are coloured in their blood...” said Jasbir who had shaved off his hair to escape detection.

Recalling the events of November 3, 1984, he said: “I was standing outside the Rajan Babu TB hospital in Kingsway Camp when I noticed Tytler come out of his car and chide a small group of people. He was provoking them to go and kill more people rather than putting them to shame,” Jasbir said.

How a high-ranking government official, in a democracy, can engage in this intentional incitement of violence against a religious minority group is appalling. Worse is his insistence still that he is the victim. His resignation should have been offered in shame, not, it appears, in defiance of the truth.

As for the victims themselves -- those killed, those close to those murdered, and to some extent the Sikh community in general -- it appears that justice has, again, eluded them. To his credit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Sikh, has assured the people and the parliament that "wherever the Commission has named any specific individuals as needing further examination or specific cases needing re-opening and re-examination, the Government will take all possible steps to do so within the ambit of law."

Dr Singh, who undoubtedly is in a difficult position being both a Sikh and a Congress party Prime Minister, will hopefully see that his "solemn promise" is kept, that those responsible will be prosecuted even if they occupy or occupied positions in the government or the party in particular. An editorial in an Indian newspaper noted:

"[Justice] cannot be tossed aside, as some apologists have suggested, by the passage of time. Getting away with murder... undermines the quality of our democracy. That is why this chance of a second shot at justice in the 1984 carnage should be seized with both hands. As a nation, we cannot afford to go wrong on it again."

In the meantime, it appears as if the emotional Sikh protesters who understandably desire -- and deserve -- more immediate justice are themselves being subject to cruel treatment reminscent of the days of the 1950's and 1960's civil rights movement in the United States, in which African-American protesers were hosed down with powerful gusts of water and beaten with riot sticks:
































For some, the absence of justice is painful enough:

















For more information on the riots and the Nanavati report, visit ENSAAF's web site and blog.

Edward Epstein of the San Francisco Chronicle offers this excellent overview of various argumetns for and against racial profiling after 9/11. Epstein's discussion covers theories that aren't normally mentioned in most press accounts regarding racial profling. Because of the novelty of these arguments, we include some of them here:

Law Professor John Banzhaf compares racial profiling to race-conscious admissions: "A very compelling argument can be made that the government's interest in protecting the lives, safety and health of thousands of its citizens from another major terrorist attack similar to those carried out in New York, London and other cities ... is at least as 'compelling' as a racially diverse student body."

Law Professor John Yoo contends that "racial profiling would be advisable under specific circumstances, such as when police have a description of a suspected suicide bomber's race or ethnicity. 'But without that, I'm not sure it makes sense,' said Yoo.

Instead of race, Yoo says "a better profile for suspected terrorists might be of young men in general, pointing to the Sept. 11 and London bombers and terrorists of other races like Reid and McVeigh."

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff would dismiss both arguments, so it seems: "I think we want to focus on behavior. It's behavior which is the best test of someone's intentions. ... We want to focus on behavior and not prejudice."

With the knowledge that the 7/7 bombers were "homegrown" terrorists, the ability of the Muslim community to successfully become part of mainstream British/Western society is being questioned, while on the other hand the need for Muslims in Britain and elsewhere to abandon their cultural ties, religious traditions, and other customs is also being challenged. In other words, the questions has become whether integration to a particular point is now required for social safety and whether multiculturalism is a liability -- not an asset -- to open democracies [see previous post].

Indeed, Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality was reported as saying that "multiculturalism is no longer the way forward and we must pursue integration in the UK." Echoing these sentiments, Tory leader David Davis reportedly argued that "multiculturalism allowed people of different religions and cultures to live together without expecting them to integrate – which was wrong." Davis additionally stated that that multiculturalism was "outdated."

The integration vs. multiculturalism question is most difficult for British Muslims themselves, who are now suffering from an identity crisis - e.g., are they sufficiently British given the extra scrutiny they will endure after 7/7, to what extent can they be Muslim without generating this heightened attention, and what allegiance does a British Muslim have to other Muslims who have resorted to, or are interested in using, terrorism as a means of addressing some grievance?
Maruf Khwaja, for example, writes that the issue has been framed as to "whether religious or national identity should take precedence in the Muslim’s acute sense of awareness." Complicating matters, according to Khwaja, is that "Islam is not an easy faith to practice.... It is also a very 'public' or demonstrative religion, and both its divisions and contradictions are in the open." In addition, Muslims in Western society are already"faced with the challenge of preserving some sort of identity against the combined impact of powerful inherited cultures and a hedonism-driven media."

To Khwaja, this self-examination is easier in the West because it "can only be undertaken in places where rational debate is protected from death threats." For this particular author, the West provides an environment in which the individual Muslim mind, especially one of a Muslim youth, can establish a fine balance between adhering to the faith and being "secular." Khwaja himself notes that, after going to America, "I rearranged my mental universe, abandoned all the schools I was born into and indoctrinated with, and went all by myself happy and free into the land of the infidel."

This individual story suggests that integration and multiculturalism aren't inconsistent concepts. This thought was repeated by the The Muslim Council of Britain, which argued that there was "no contradiction" between having a multicultural society and achieving integration.

The debate surrounding identity in the context of the integration vs. multiculturalism has now turned to a question of labeling, specifically whether hyphenated titles such as Indian-American or Italian-American should be used in Britain. Joseph Harker, a columnist for the Guardian (UK), thinks such titles are a negative thing: "Across the Atlantic, the double identities of the various minorities are a measure of their exclusion from society, not of their integration into it." Harker also argues that it is inconsistent for Muslims and Asians in Britain to want hyphenated names (and thus to be identified differently), but for these same people to complain when they are treated differently (i.e., during the 7/7 backlash). Apparently, however, some Muslims are criticizing the idea as well: Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Muslim Forum said, “What is being proposed is divisive … it would create a lower strata of British."

There has been extensive coverage of the backlash following the bombings in London, and of the reaction from the government and members of the Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and Asian communities in Britain and elsewhere. Unfortunately, we have been unable to post or comment on all of the articles that we came across on this subject. However, these articles deserve to be distributed and talked about. In an effort to render our coverage of the 7/7 backlash and resulting debate more thorough, we are posting articles we previously overlooked.

We'd like to draw particular attention to the articles on the racial attack on 7/7 victim's family (who is Muslim).

Incidents

• Bombing Victim's Family Targeted in Race Hate Crime: The family of one of the London bombing dead has become the latest victim of the racial abuse backlash against muslims which is sweeping the country.
• Muslim abuse victim's anger at backlash: [same family as above]
• 7/7 'revenge' attack on disabled Asian: Backlash against the July 7 bombings here is taking on racial dimensions with a disabled Hindu man attacked and called Al Qaeda, an Asian human rights campaigner has said.
• Attack on Hindu Temple Blamed on Bombings Backlash: Vandals and fly-tippers have driven worshippers out of a Hindu temple in Edmonton.... Hindu priest Bandit Krishnatreya, 79, fears they are the victims of a backlash against minorities in the wake of the terror attacks on London.
• Asian Mother and Daughters Attacked in Essex: the 30-year-old was and her children were kicked, spat at and taunted about the terrorist attacks in London.

Profiling and Other Security Measures

• Profiling Debate Heats Up in London: "I don't want people to stare at me any more," he said of his change of habit, adding that he had no particular religious affiliations."
• Transit Attacks Revive Targeted Profiling Debate: In a country that has proclaimed from its inception that all men are created equal, many Americans find the notion of targeted racial profiling disturbing. In most cases, it's also illegal.
• Faith Groups Oppose Plans for Government ID Cards in the UK: Mounting concerns over the government's plans to introduce compulsory ID cards were given fresh impetus yesterday after it emerged that Britain's major religions oppose the scheme.
• Head of Australian Muslim Organization Wants Required Registration for Clerics: THE head of Australia's peak Islamic body wants Muslim clerics to undergo a registration process similar to marriage celebrants

Condemnation & Outreach

• U.S. Muslims Reach Out to Youth, Educate Against Terror: Alarmed by the London subway bombings, US Muslim activists have produced a pamphlet on how to spot "susceptible youth" and are taking steps to prevent young people in the US from embracing extremist views.
• Australian PM Hosts Anti-Terrorism Summit with Muslims: Prime Minister John Howard is to host an anti-terrorism summit with Muslim leaders to find ways to confront religious figures and others who preach fear and violence.
• Backlash Fear Helpline Set Up at Scotland Yard: A 24-hour advice line to help minority groups who fear a backlash after the London bomb attacks has been set up at Scotland Yard.
• CAIR-SC Condemns London Bombings: As a Muslim, I am outraged as well as sad to see those committing this heinous crime in the name of Islam. They not only are destroying innocent lives, but also are betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent.
• Muslim leaders call bombers `criminals': Prompted by the terrorist bombings in London that killed dozens last month, a group of Bay Area Muslim leaders Tuesday read aloud a fatwa, or religious ruling, at a San Jose mosque calling the attackers ``criminals'' who violate the letter and spirit of Islam.

[Thanks to Tracy Wells of the Pluralism Project for bringing these materials to our attention]

WTOP NEWS is reporting that "A Muslim woman who is eight and a half months pregnant was allegedly harassed Tuesday morning," in Arlington, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC. Specifically, according to a local police officer, "the 23-year-old woman told officers she was walking... when three white men in a pickup truck drove by shouting anti-Muslim epithets at her." The woman was wearing a head-scarf. "The truck reportedly circled back around and one of the men got out and shouted at her while grasping her shoulders."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants the FBI and local police to treat this as a hate crime.

According to CAIR, "the men shouted, 'You terrorist b- tch, go back to your country...You n-gger b-tch... We're going to kick your a-s. . . you're nothing.'"

Columnist Vanessa Gezari writes of her recent experiences in London, generally observing that "Last month's terrorist attacks have left the British wondering about their routines and beliefs, and what the future holds for their country."

Gezari speaks of her friend "Anjali, who is 31 and half Indian." According to Gezari, Anjali "told her mother that if she saw a South Asian man with a backpack on the bus, she would sit next to him in a personal rebellion against the divisive effects of the bombings."

Gezari also provides us with insight into how the lives of South Asian men have changed after 7/7:

A man recently told a TV reporter that he had bought a bicycle, not so much because he feared an attack, but because he didn't like eyeing his fellow passengers with suspicion....

On the subway these days, Ats and other South Asian men play a silent game. "We look and just sort of smile, like, "You're wearing a backpack, are you a bomber? No, I'm not,' " Ats says.

"We're seen by everyone as potential threats, and we see each other as potential threats as well.... It was the worst nightmare come true that those guys were British-born," he says. "We wanted them to be foreigners."

Recently, we introduced you to "Into the Whirlwind," the blog of DNSI co-director Valarie Kaur. As previously noted, Valarie spent four months after 9/11 interviewing victims of hate crimes and discrimination from around the nation. This summer, Valarie is retracing her steps, interviewing these same and other victims.

Valarie's latest post recounts her meeting with Balbir Singh Sodhi's family. As Valarie painfully reminds us:

On September 15, 2001, BALBIR SINGH SODHI [pictured]was standing in front of his gas station, preparing to plant flowers. A man in a black truck pulled around the corner and shot him five times. Balbir, 52 years old, was the first person to be killed in a post-9/11 hate crime. When arrested, the man yelled, “I am a patriot. Arrest me and let those terrorists run wild.”

Valarie met with several of Mr. Sodhi's family members, including his widow. This post is a must-read for anyone interested in the backlash after 9/11.

Donald Hubin, a professor at Ohio State University, offers this response to the argument that it makes more sense to profile a Muslim or Arab man rather than subject an old white woman to heightened security measures. For example, Rich Lowry, argued that "a 70-year-old white woman from Vero Beach should [not] receive the same level of scrutiny as a Muslim from Jersey City." Similarly, Ian Johnston, chief constable of the British Transport Police said his force "should not waste time searching old white ladies."

Professor Hubin counters:

It's hard to argue with the logic that we're more threatened by a young Arab man than a 67-year-old grandmother. [However,] The average young Arab is not going to do us harm. Once they know you're giving white-haired grannies a pass, hey'll find and recruit grannies.

The Washington Post's Colbert I. King offers another convincing critique of conservative commentators who argue that racial profiling should be used as an anti-terror security mechanism in light of the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks.

King argues principally that it is hypocritical for conservatives to support racial profiling when they are generally opposed to racial preferences. For example, conservatives are against race-conscious admissions programs.

In the course of his discussion, King also points out that even if conservatives were consistent in their approach to racial classifications, developing a coherent and reliable profile would be extremely difficult:

Under racial profiling, as they would have it practiced in subways, airports, train stations, etc., individual differences among North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian young men would be ignored. These people would be labeled and profiled as possible terrorists and be reduced to an amalgamated stew closely watched by the state....

Who among us, for example, can distinguish a Muslim man from a non-Muslim man? A Saudi from a Salvadoran? A dark-brown-skinned Jamaican from a dark-brown-skinned Washingtonian? A heavy coat-wearing, backpack-toting, suicide bomber, quietly reciting religious verse, from the over-cloaked, muttering, bag-laden homeless man who takes off running at the sight of a cop?

King concludes by hypothesizing why conservatives can rally in support of racial profiling despite their views on the race in society and the clear mandates of the Constitution:

How can they, of all people, argue that the government, in the name of fighting terrorism, should judge individuals differently on account of their national origin, ethnicity, religion or race? Is it because they know it won't be their ox that gets gored?

The shooting death of a Brazilian man who was thought to be of "South Asian origin" should itself indicate that profiling may have very dangerous and unfortunate consequences. In addition, Britain's Daily Mirror is reporting on the minority communities subjected to hate crimes: "Suresh Grover, of The Monitoring Group which studies race attacks, said: 'We have had calls from South Americans, Eastern Europeans, Hindus and Sikhs'" -- clearly not just Muslims, Arabs, or South Asians.

In a press release, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced that the Department of Justice, FBI and the Washington Metropolitan Police Department all contributed to the arrest of Max L. Oakley, who "allegedly sent e-mailed threats claiming that he would bomb CAIR's Washington, D.C., office and American mosques unless the civil rights and advocacy group made a public announcement that it was ceasing operations."

A CAIR spokesman noted, "This arrest will send a clear message to Islamophobic bigots that intimidation of American Muslims and threats against their institutions will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted vigorously."

About 150 Muslim-Americans gathered at the Connecticut state capitol on Friday to voice their objections to terrorism and particularly to Muslim extemists. In what is becoming a more familiar sight after the 7/7 attacks, Muslims themselves are speaking out against terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism:

Saud Anwar, president of the Connecticut chapter of the Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, said "Today we all come together to make a statement.... Terrorists are our enemies as much as they are anyone else's."

On NPR: "Following the recent London transit bombings, commentator Siddhartha Mitter notes that some targets of the harshest anti-Muslim attacks have no connection to Islam. Mitter is a Boston-based independent writer on politics and culture."

To listen to the audio segment, please click here.

[Thanks to Amardeep Singh]

"Professor Zaki Badawi, head of the Muslim College in London and chairman of the Council of Mosques and Imams, wrote:

In the present tense situation, with the rise of attacks on Muslims, we advise Muslim women who fear being attacked physically or verbally to remove their hijab so as not to be identified by those who are hostile to Muslims.

This suggestion serves as further evidence that the cost of maintaining a more identifiable religious identity is greater and greater.

The rise in hate crimes in England after the 7/7 bombings and the failed 7/21 attacks is known and documented. The Associated Press has provided an example of the increased tension and intolerance in London by running a story on Ahmed Ali, a Somali-born Muslim who "moved to Britain nearly 13 years ago, found work as a London bus driver and became a British citizen."

Prior to 7/7, Ali "says he never suffered abuse because of his ethnic background or religion." All that has changed.

According to Ali, after the media reported that "an East African man [was] suspected of trying to blow up a London subway train," a co-worker told Ali: "Mr. Ali, he's your brother, he just looks like you. You are coming into this country, blowing yourselves up and killing people"

The article also recounted other examples and provided troubling statistics on the rise of hate-related incidents:

• In northern England's West Yorkshire region, which has a large minority of Muslims of mostly South Asian origin, police said reports of racially motivated incidents nearly doubled.
  
• There were 366 such incidents between June 30 and July 21 [in this region], compared with 195 over a similar period last year.
• Police in Edinburgh, Scotland, said a gang of 10 men attacked two South Asians on Friday, shouting racial taunts about the London bombings and throwing a hammer through their car window.

The Sikh Coalition, via SikhSangat.com, is reporting that a Sikh woman was fired from her job with a National Wholesale Liquidators store in New York, and was also told by her supervisor that she should take off her turban and that Sikhs are “thieves and nasty.”

The Coalition filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Abhi, at Sepia Mutiny, linked to this DNSI post regarding the creation of a "Beurger King Muslim" (BKM) fast food restaurant in France, and has thoughtfully advanced the following question: to what extent does BKM demonstrate the isolation of Muslim communities in the West, given that their ability to integrate into Western societies is already being challenged? Indeed, the alleged failure of Muslims to sufficiently assimilate (and thus be a member of the "mainstream") is being considered part of the reason why homegrown terrorist activity was realized in London, and why the United States is, as of yet, free from this particular brand of violence. (Of course, Timothy McVeigh and others are homegrown terrorists, but that fact has escaped the attention of many, and homegrown terrorism seemingly is defined with reference only to second-generation immigrants with particular national origins.)

Leaving aside terrorism for a brief moment, this issue is important in respect of individual identity. A difficult problem for many, if not all, second-generation youth is how to balance the cultural upbringing and traditions of the motherland (e.g., India) with the values and lifestyle of the adopted homeland (e.g., the United States). A failure to integrate may lead to isolation in American schools, the workplace, and in everyday life, whereas abandoning or ignoring the ways of immigrant parents results in a Western identity that may be without meaningful understanding of the motherland's language, traditions, etc.

One may argue that one's identity is ultimately a personal choice; that no single point on the cultural identity spectrum should or must be selected. However, in the present climate, and to return the discussion to terrorism, it now appears as if one extreme has been rendered inappropriate for Western society - a failure to integrate is not only troublesome for the individual (e.g., being the subject of social ridicule, being unfamiliar with pop culture and other Western references), but also, according to some, for the safety and welfare of that individual's country. That is, a school of thought seems to hold that a person who does not integrate is perhaps more likely to be seduced by radical thought and is less attached to the community they are about to violate, and is thus more likely to be a terrorist.

In this sense, one may wonder whether the current post-7/7 environment is, to some extent, starting to force individuals to integrate more fully and to adopt an identity that bears greater resemblence to those who have been in that home country for generations and generations. The effect on the immigrant community, then, is a greater cost for being reliable members of an ethnic minority group, by holding on to foreign customs, languages, or traditions. This is true not only in terms of continuing to observe certain traditions (e.g., keeping unshorn hair and a turban), but also associating with other members of the same minority group (e.g., in 'Little Pakistans'). A Sikh man with a turban and a group of men of "South Asian origin" may be viewed with greater suspicion than a Sikh with his hair cut and a single Indian-American man walking down Main Street, USA. (Would Americans on a plane rather sit next to a man with a turban or a clean-shaven man, or be on a plane with a single Pakistanior four of them?)

In other words, "multi-culturalism," (which implies at a minimum that a person identifies with and embraces at least parts of two cultures, and which does not demand that one part dominate the other), is being redefined by some in the world of terrorist aggression: some are insisting that the culture of the adopted home nation mute the emotive ties that one may have to one's homeland, ties that may be abused into sympathy for the identifiable (and therefore marginalized?) minority community.

In a larger context, one may additionally ponder whether this form of coercion, where there is an expectation that one assimilate to a certain degree or at least want to avoid additional suspicion, is consistent with American liberal traditions. The nation was founded by immigrants and is the melting pot of the world. The appreciation for diversity of people is generally well-recognized in American society, for example with respect to race-conscious admissions and the concept of factions articulated by James Madison. However, one amorphous group within the American mosaic (i.e., the brown) is being thought of as "safe" only because it has commingled with larger American society to some satisfactory degree - conversely, perhaps the more identifiable it is with respect to foreign customs (e.g., all Muslim women wearing burkas), the more uncomfortable some would be with their existence in America.

This leads to another related concern, which is what it truly means to be a "moderate." Some have said, convincingly, that moderate Muslims must take on a greater role in preventing radical Islamic fundamentalists from claiming religious legitimacy for their terrorist actions, from effectively recruiting young Muslims, and from ultimately carrying out terrorist acts against innocent civilians. A moderate is perhaps generally thought of as someone who believes in the faith but whose beliefs do not compel hatred against non-members of that faith and who do not use the faith as a justification for acts of hatred. However, what if a moderate is being redefined as well, to mean not just someone who believes but does not hate, but who is assimiliated, integrated, or multicultural in their identity? That is, the moderates in the United States are more likely to be Westernized, and thus they are the safe sect of the Muslim community who is now assuming a greater role in the war against radical Muslims. The universe of radicals is going overlap to a large extent with the universe of those who have sincerely held beliefs at the exclusion, to a large extent, of the adopted land's popular culture.

In short, who is "safe" is more likely to be more like "us" whereas those resistant to a more Western identity will be looked on with greater suspicion and urged to change their ways or else face the consequences. This returns us to BKM, which to some is an unwise venture because it is an indication that Muslims are taking a step back in terms of integrating and are drawing a thicker line between their culture and dietary needs and those of the general French population; indeed, the BKM business has the word "Muslim" in it! Perhaps worse than this is the compulsion, the urging by some Western political leaders that Muslims integrate to some satisfactory degree. Ideally, one should practice their faith as they see fit so long as one does not harm others. But, the cost of holding on to one's Eastern faith and customs is unfortunately greater. As a result, perhaps there is a positive aspect to BKM - it is a sign of defiance in the face of governmental expectations.

UPDATE: In today's Washington Post, Salmun Rushdie offers the following, related thoughts:

In Leeds, from which several of the London bombers came, many traditional Muslims lead inward-turned lives of near-segregation from the wider population. From such defensive, separated worlds some youngsters have indefensibly stepped across a moral line and taken up their lethal rucksacks.

The deeper alienations that lead to terrorism may have their roots in these young men's objections to events in Iraq or elsewhere, but the closed communities of some traditional Western Muslims are places in which young men's alienations can easily deepen. What is needed is a move beyond tradition -- nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows to let in much-needed fresh air.

France has a new fast-food restaurant: Beurger King Muslim (BKM). The restaurant is styled after American fast-food chains (hmm, wonder which one??) and aims to attract France's young generation of Muslims:

The name is a play on both the huge American chain as well as the French slang word "beur", which means second generation North Africans living in France.

There is only one BKM currently open, however the hope is that other BKM's will pop-up across the country. The menu, expectedly, features burgers with halal meat. A "technical counselor" named Hakim explains:

We buy meat from a local supplier and it's prepared according to halal rites. And we verify the origin and content of all foods to make sure there is no alcohol or animal fat mixed in with the sauces or other ingredients.

One can only appreciate the ingenuity of the BKM concept, however one must also worry that in addition to facing the ban on conspicuous articles of faith in public schools, the Muslim proprietors who created this restaurant may also have to concern themselves with a trademark suit by, of course, Burger King.

UPDATE: Abhi, at Sepia Mutiny, linked to this post, and has thoughtfully advanced the following question: to what extent does BKM demonstrate the isolation of Muslim communities in the West.... [read more]

SECOND UPDATE: The story regarding the opening of BKM is gaining considerable steam, as, for example, The Washington Post, on Friday, August 5, 2005, picked up this Associated Press write-up.

According to Newsday (NY), the federal authorities have been targeting the 'Little Pakistan' section of Brooklyn in an attempt to round up suspicious individuals and those violating immigration laws. The article notes that as a result of this unwanted attention, many Pakistanis who did not get picked up by authorities have left the area - to other areas of the U.S., to Canada, and even back to the homeland.

As a result, 'Little Pakistan' has been functionally gutted. Grocery store owner Pervaiz Saleem says, "it's dead here.... My customers, so many of them did get interrogated, were deported or just fled. People disappeared."

Another man noted, "Women and girls in particular, given their mode of dress -- their head scarves, for example -- tell me that they feel they would be the first to be singled out for a hate crime or a deportation-type arrest. Some are actually afraid to go outside right now."

As an indication of how little things have changed since 9/11, a man admits to showing large American flags on the Fourth of July: "If we have to prove our patriotism, so be it -- we will."

The editors of the Los Angeles Times discussed the fatwa issued by "U.S. and Canadian Muslim scholars and religious leaders " in which they declared that "All acts of terrorism are haram, forbidden by Islam. It is haram, forbidden, to cooperate or associate with … any act of terrorism or violence."

According to these editors, these Muslim leaders should be praised for their efforts and that the existence of this fatwa demonstrates the fact that Muslims are more integrated in American society, which is different from the condition of Muslims in Europe, where they are more "ghettoized."

The editors suggested that the government should be more appreciative of this fatwa: "The U.S. is safer for their efforts, but the government has been curiously reticent to acknowledge and praise the anti-terror cooperation of Muslim organizations. The latest fatwa offers a new opportunity. It would be encouraging for these Muslims to hear publicly from President Bush or at least Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff on that point."

Law professor David A. Harris argues in the Washington Post:

Using race or ethnicity this way will not make us safer; it will make us less safe.

In a war against terrorism, we must train our law enforcement personnel to watch for the things that terrorists do, no matter what they may look like. The Israeli aviation security system has made this a guiding principle. Our certainty about what our enemies "look like" distracts our security forces from what's important: terrorist behavior. The result is less accuracy.

In addition, the inclusion of people who "look like" our enemies results in a huge number of false positives upon which we spend our precious time and resources.

Perhaps most important, when we focus on Muslims from the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, our ability to receive intelligence from these groups will be corroded because these people will begin to fear law enforcement. And fear will cut off communication and our best source of human intelligence on potential sleeper cells in the United States.

[P]rofiling will not leave our murderous enemies with the single alternative of "recruiting elderly Norwegian women." Al Qaeda has shown itself to be smart, adaptable and cunning; it will simply use people who do not play into our stereotypes. The appearances of people from the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia vary enough that these killers won't be held up for a minute.

Avoiding racial or ethnic profiling is not a matter of "assuaging the feelings of minorities" or of political correctness. It is about avoiding a tactic that would be profoundly against our own interests.

Figures from Scotland Yard indicate that:

• "Crimes motivated by religious hatred have rocketed by nearly 600% in London since the July 7 bombings
• "[T]here were 269 such incidents reported since the suicide bombings compared to only 40 in the same three-and-a-half week period last year."

Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur said that "[m]ost of the incidents were low-level abuse or minor assaults but they had a great 'emotional impact' on communities...."

Reader Jaskaran Kaur, co-founder and executive director of ENSAAF, a nonprofit organization fighting impunity in India, sent us this eye-opening and thought-provoking op-ed, which she authored and which was published in the Boston Globe:

WHEN INDIAN Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meets with President Bush in Washington this week on his first official visit, and the first of an Indian head of state since 9/11, he will be reaffirming a strategic partnership. Prime Minister Singh will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, and terrorism is high on the agenda. An item not likely on the agenda is India's systematic abuse of human rights in the name of counter-terrorism. Despite receiving praise as the world's largest democracy, India's human rights record falls dismally behind countries that have only recently shed their legacy of dictatorships.

From 1984-95, Indian security forces tortured, ''disappeared," killed, and illegally cremated more than 10,000 Punjabi Sikhs in counter-insurgency operations. Many perpetrators of these abuses are now championed as counter-terrorism experts. Most prominent among them is former Punjab director general of police and campaign architect K.P.S. Gill, whose policies, according to Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, ''appeared to justify any and all means, including torture and murder." Hailed as a super cop, Gill now heads an Indian counter-terrorism institute.

Four years ago, I criss-crossed Punjab and documented the impact of impunity for abuses committed by security forces. I sat on jute cots in poor farming houses talking with survivors struggling to rebuild their lives and sipped tea in the guarded mansions of judges. A senior high court judge, who addressed me as a naïve daughter, pointedly told me that fundamental rights did not exist during an insurgency.

One afternoon, I spoke with Jaswinder Singh. He was in his 20s. In 1992, Punjab police officers repeatedly subjected Jaswinder to electric shocks, stretched his legs apart at the waist until his thigh muscles ruptured, and suspended him upside down from the ceiling, while beating him with rods. Subsequently, the police ''disappeared" his brother, father, and grandfather. Jaswinder unsuccessfully pursued his family's disappearance to the Supreme Court. But he had no time for grief; the loss of his family's breadwinners meant he had to support the survivors, despite continued police harassment.

A flickering hope of justice remains for survivors of the counter-insurgency abuses. Since December 1996, the Committee for Information and Initiative in Punjab has struggled before the Indian National Human Rights Commission in a landmark lawsuit addressing police abductions that led to mass cremations, including those of Jaswinder's family. The commission, acting as a body of the Indian Supreme Court, has the authority to remedy violations of fundamental rights in this historic case of mass crimes. Its decisions will serve as precedent for victims of state-sponsored abuses throughout India. The commission has received over 3,500 claims from Amritsar alone, one of 17 districts in Punjab.

During the past eight years, however, the commission has not heard testimony from a single survivor. Guatemala's Historical Clarification Commission registered 42,275 victims in 18 months. El Salvador's Commission on the Truth collected information on 22,000 victims in eight months. The Indian Commission, however, has kept survivors running in circles, limiting its inquiry to one of 17 districts in Punjab.

A few weeks ago, the commission drastically narrowed its mandate, stating its plan to resolve the case by determining only whether police had properly cremated victims -- not whether the police had wrongfully killed them in the first place. With this move, the commission rejected the victims' right to life and endorsed the Indian government's position that life is expendable during times of insurgency.

India's counter-terrorism practices have left a legacy of broken families, rampant police abuse, and a judicial system unwilling to enforce fundamental rights. As India ignores its past, it continues to employ the same Draconian measures in places such as Kashmir. While Prime Minister Singh extols India as a leading democracy, the international community must weigh the devastation and insecurity wrought by a national security policy based on systematic human rights abuses and impunity.

In 1997, Ajaib Singh committed suicide after the Punjab police tortured and disappeared his son and justice failed him. His suicide note read: ''Self-annihilation is the only way out of a tyranny that leaves no chance for justice." If India fails to address its own mass atrocities, this should raise serious questions about its role as a partner in the ''war on terror."