The recent disruptive imams on a plane incident hits one of my tropes, which is the apparent unwillingness of the Islamic community to be cooperative with its host society. As more information comes out, it seems very clear to me that the imams were being deliberatively provocative, precisely to create the kind of incident that resulted. It’s an excellent illustration of the point I was trying to get at in this thread — that the essence of dhimmitude, that everything else in a society must be subservient to the will of the Islamic community, is still very much an active part of Islam. That is certainly how these imams see it, that they should be able to do anything at all and everyone else must sacrifice and accomodate that. There is no hint that any of them can envision a compromise between their belief system and American society. I believe that the imams are explicitly forcing the issue, expecting that it is American culture that will blink and enshrine the concept that any reaction to suspicious behavior by Muslims is not permitted.
But, some might say, these are only six imams. They can hardly be taken to represent the Islamic community in America. But why not? It’s a very public and well known issue yet the only response from the putative representatives of the ummah supportive, such as CAIR’s involvement. Moreover, and here is the critical point, it’s not my problem.
This very question shows why the imams think they can win this contest of wills, because by asking “what can we, the non-Islamic community, do to avoid this?” concedes the point. The question pre-supposes that the ummah has no responsibility in this regard, that all concern and accomodation must happen elsewhere. Not so — if the ummah wants to not be considered a fifth column, then it, not everyone else, must take action to prevent it. It would be bummer if Islam ended up being purged as we have done to other groups in American history, but I would get over it. And if the ummah doesn’t seem to care any more than that, why should I?