Muslim Refusal Is No Great Shakes

Back in April 2006, I first read on The Middle East Forum about Daniel Pipe's proposed Islamist Watch, which now is described on the Islamist Watch site as follows:

ISLAMIST WATCH, a project of the Middle East Forum, combats the ideas and institutions of lawful Islamism in the United States and throughout the West. Arguing that "radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution," we seek to expose the Islamist organizations that currently dominate the debate, while identifying and promoting the work of moderate Muslims. Islamist Watch specifically does not deal with counterterrorism but works to establish that lawful Islamism is by and of itself a threat. [emphasis added]

At the time, based on some of the examples Pipes gave I wrote him that:

I noticed that among your examples of nonviolent Islamism are:

• Set aside women-only bathing at a municipal swimming pool in France or use taxpayer funds for Muslim women-only swimming times in Washington State.
• Establish panels, councils, or advisory boards uniquely for Muslims.
• Authorize Muslim-only neighborhoods or events.

Do you think there may be cases that will make the Jewish community susceptible to parallel criticism?

Might a group such as you are proposing pave the way to a group creating a more vocal and official "Zionist Watch" that would openly criticize Kashrut symbols on food, wearing of Kippot, and other things remotely similar?

I like the idea of your project, but after looking at some of the examples, I just wanted to know what you thought about this.

Daniel Pipes was nice enough to respond:

Do you think there may be cases that will make the Jewish community succeptible to parallel criticism?

not really; can't think of any. Jewish efforts are private, these are public.

Pipes' reply did not answer my concerns, though I signed up to receive emails from the new list. Not all "Jewish efforts" are private.

Today's post by David J. Rusin, The Non-Handshake That Shook Ireland, raised my old concerns again:

Shaking hands is a centuries-old custom that conveys greetings and respect. For this reason, refusing an extended hand will likely be interpreted as an insult. Such was the case when a Muslim asylum seeker set to receive an award for volunteer work in Ireland informed the committee that he would not shake hands with the woman presenting it. As a result, they gave the certificate to someone else.

...The Irish case is merely the latest handshake controversy. Last year, a female Muslim officer was exempted from shaking hands with the London police chief at a graduation ceremony. In 2006, an employment commission in the Netherlands ruled that a Muslim woman could not be barred from a teacher-training program because she refused to shake hands with men. Most ironic of all, that same year the Dutch immigration minister was snubbed as she presented diplomas to imams completing an "assimilation course."

Rusin recognizes that Muslims are not alone among religious groups in this regard, but still finds Muslims to be different:

Inter-gender handshakes are also restricted by some other religious groups, so why should the above stories be of concern? Because only among lawful Islamists is there a prominent push to institutionalize aspects of Shari'a-grounded gender segregation in the public square. Any accommodation must be viewed in this broader context.

With Shari'a on the march, Western society cannot afford to sit on its hands.

Reading this, I felt very uncomfortable that Rusin automatically assumed that the broader context was Muslim extremists instead of the commonality between Islam and other religious groups in this regard.

The four cases of Muslims refraining from shaking hands is a long way from Muslim taxi drivers refusing to give rides to blind people with seeing eye dogs or Muslim cashiers at Target refusing to deal with customers buying liquor--unless you take the position of the self-described Ethicist, who in October 2002 responded to a real estate broker who wrote that she was taken aback when an Orthodox Jew would not shake her hand:

Some religions (and some civil societies) that assign men and women distinct spheres argue that while those two spheres are different, neither is inferior to the other. This sort of reasoning was rejected in 1954 in the great school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court declared that separate is by its very nature unequal. That's a pretty good ethical guideline for ordinary life.

In responding to this answer, Jonathan Rosenblum writes:

Frankly, in polyglot New York, I would have expected a message of greater tolerance for practices that at first strike us as strange. The real-estate agent, after all, did not ask anything of the woman. He did not request her to don a long skirt and shawl, as tens of thousands of ardent feminists do every year upon entering St. Peter's Cathedral. Nor did he withhold anything tangible from her. (Presumably she had no interest in holding his hand.) [emphasis added]

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to treat a Muslim any differently.

Technorati Tag: Muslims.