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.