
In the first majority-Muslim U.S. city, residents tense about its future - gotchange
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/for-the-first-majority-muslim-us-city-residents-tense-about-its-future/2015/11/21/45d0ea96-8a24-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html
======
cstross
I read this article as quasi-racist fearmongering, jumping on the Trump
bandwagon for circulation figures. Shameful yellow journalism, in other words.

Imagine how this article would read if for "muslim" you substituted "hispanic"
or "jew" or "african-american". Alarmist? Racist? Hostile? Got it in one. Now
how is structuring the narrative around muslims any different?

(There's a classic saying in newsroom culture: "if it bleeds, it leads" \--
which is why for the past week our news has been saturated with _the muslims
are coming! Be afraid!_ rhetoric. It doesn't sell newspapers to point out that
there are around 2 billion muslims world-wide, of whom maybe 20,000 are active
jihadis in AQ and Da'esh; the rest are just ordinary folks who are happy to
get along, and overall they've killed vastly fewer people on American or
European soil than home-grown terrorists over the past five decades.)

NB: expecting downvotes, because nothing triggers a witch-hunt like a media
panic over [insert terrifying incomprehensible foreign threat here].

~~~
themartorana
I'm sure I'm in the minority here (where the word "racist" is thrown around
rather liberally and without any mind for "let him who is without sin...") In
any case, I can understand the tension.

First and perhaps most common is just a fear of changing culture. It happens,
and all is fluid, but it's not uncommon. Many people fear change, and I'm not
saying it's good to restrict change because of that fear, but I understand the
human nature behind it.

That said, I'd be upset if I had to hear a call to prayer 5 times a day. I am
pretty anti-religion as it goes, which is my own personal bias, but I don't
appreciate being forced to tolerate annoyance for someone else's religion.
It's the same as people blasting music in the park 5x a day - the idea of
noise pollution and disturbing the peace exists for this very reason. Allowing
it to continue for what I assume are politically correct reasons is
frustrating.

I also do not understand why I should be expected to tolerate Islam when it
stands against many things I'm for - most egregiously is equal rights for
women (not to mention other common religious touch-points like homosexuality,
premarital sex, and huge swaths of science education). Islam is most
oppressive to women. I hear the argument "Well what if a woman _wants_ to be
Muslim?" to which I answer that I'm sure there were conservative women against
Suffrage or equal pay or any number of progressive issues for women.

Living in peace with our neighbors is fine and expected, and living in a major
city as I do, there are people of all creeds and religions - but I'm still
going to be annoyed when the National Guard take over the city and lock it
down for the Pope (who, as progressive as he is, is still rather homophobic),
or when the Nation of Islam is shouting through speakers on the streets, or
when some born-again nut is shouting at me through a loud speaker/bull horn
about how my whole family is going to burn in Hell.

Tolerance for Islam is the new politically correct darling. It's still
oppressive to women, it's still an organized religion, and like absolutely
everything and everybody in this world, it will take full advantage of the
leeway given to it.

And so I understand the frustration with certain aspects of what this article
touches on.

~~~
cstross
_I also do not understand why I should be expected to tolerate Islam when it
stands against many things I 'm for_

You're expected to tolerate it for the same reason _they_ are expected to
tolerate _your_ beliefs. (Or those of Christian dominionists, for that
matter.) Separation of Church and State is one of the best ideas to have come
out of the US constitution, bar none, and if you don't see how it benefits
you, you haven't lived in a nation that doesn't have it.

(Trust me on this: I'm British and I can't go out of my front door without
witnessing the long-term effects of a State religion around me -- a toothless,
decrepit thing that is rapidly fading away, but a state religion nonetheless,
with all the legacy of privilege that implies.)

------
Mithaldu
Are there ways to counter the calls for prayer legally? I'd imagine they
violate some noise disturbance laws, especially if they're played right next
to people's apartments.

Mainly curious on that point because i'd consider going that way against a
church down the road if they'd jangle their bells more than once or twice a
week.

~~~
seivan
Not sure how the bells work in US churches, but here they actually serve a
purpose, they ring the bells for each hour until 8PM. Around 12 (noon) they
have this little jingle that tells you it's 12 in case you can't keep track of
"rings".

That way you can either count the "rings" for every hour or just count how
many it was since you heard the jingle.

I actually do the latter after 12 for "faux" Pomodoro.

~~~
Mithaldu
I live in hannover (de) and as far as i can tell, the bells on this particular
church go whenever they damn well please. (Probably related to events there,
weddings or such.)

------
c3534l
> Business owners within 500 feet of one of Hamtramck’s four mosques can’t
> obtain a liquor license, she complained

Isn't that an illegal violation of the separation of church and state?

~~~
frozenport
Just like dry counties or final call?

~~~
c3534l
Those apply to everyone in the jurisdiction at least, though blue laws are
often widely acknowledged as being religious laws that have fallen through the
cracks (even though, oddly, Christianity doesn't have any prohibitions on
drinking that I know of). Still, they don't say "you can't eat bacon if you
live close to a Jew and they tell you to stop." That's insane that a law is in
place that says people of a certain religion can tell you what to do simply by
virtue of being near you.

------
Torgo
I find it more significant that this wasn't any sort of natural demographic
shift because of jobs or anything else, but a direct result of the federal
refugee resettlement program. Some distant government agency sat down and
essentially worked out a plan that they knew (or should have known) would make
Muslims a majority in a previously massively Catholic-majority city. That has
massive political and social ramifications, both at the cause and effect
level. Why isn't that the story?

------
kshatrea
As a citizen of a country with many such cities[0], I would advise the people
of this city to relax, nothing bad is going to happen. The only real issue
most Muslims have with any non-Muslim country is that it is a general
perception that they're Muslim first[1](just one reference but I can get
more). For e.g. in India, most Muslims hate Israel[2] even though Palestine
has nothing to do with India's foreign policy objectives except at the UN
(which is its own story). As for the liquor ban, that kind of thing happens in
many places. For e.g. in India an Indian state (Maharashtra), banned beef,
even though it is only the cow that is sacred in Hinduism and one can
slaughter buffaloes. I am not Muslim and I don't like religion as a concept,
but as long as the act of violence is not perpetrated, I don't see what the
residents of Hamtramck, MI have to worry about. [0]
[http://islamicpopulation.blogspot.se/2010/07/indian-
cities-w...](http://islamicpopulation.blogspot.se/2010/07/indian-cities-with-
highest-muslim.html) [1]
[http://baltimorechronicle.com/muslimsfirst_nov02.shtml](http://baltimorechronicle.com/muslimsfirst_nov02.shtml)
[2] [http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/they-call-me-
muslim/2010/01/...](http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/they-call-me-
muslim/2010/01/10/israel-and-indian-muslims-where-we-stand/)

~~~
acqq
> As a citizen of a country with many such cities (India) (...) relax, nothing
> bad is going to happen

Probably not in the mostly Hindu areas (India is huge), but Pakistan was made
in order to have Muslims rule over the part of the former India,

"About half a million Muslims and Hindus were killed in communal riots
following the partition of British India. Millions of Muslims living in India
and Hindus and Sikhs living in Pakistan emigrated in one of the most colossal
transfers of population in the modern era"

and the violence didn't stop after Pakistan was formed:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Pakistan_relatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations)

"violent partition (...) three major wars, one undeclared war and (...)
numerous armed skirmishes and military standoffs"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_genocide)

And the atom bombs prepared on both sides.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons)

And you are absolutely right that "the only real issue most Muslims have with
any non-Muslim country is that it is a general perception that they're Muslim
first." Unfortunately, Islam has its political component still considered as
the inseparable part of the religion.

------
yawgmoth
This is indeed a quasi-racist (should be bigoted, not racist), fearmongering
article. There are huge neighborhoods of Dearborn, MI and Dearborn Heights, MI
that are overwhelmingly Muslim. Any gripes brought up by the Muslim residents
of Hamtramck have nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with
their individual attitudes.

~~~
imaginenore
How is it racist in any way? What race are you talking about? Islam is a
religion, not a skin color.

~~~
yawgmoth
Bringing up Majewski's perspectives without considering where they are
relative to others is problematic. People are tense? The group of people to
which Majewski is referring are vocal and don't represent Hamtramck as a whole
(nor any other cities in SE Michigan with large Arab and Muslim populations).

For many (myself not included, thanks), there is a tremendous conflation of
Islam and Arab. Simply look at the comments in the OP. (edit: But, you are
right, bigoted would be a more accurate choice of wording.)

This article will certainly serve as reinforcement for people who are already
afraid of Islam and WaPo knows this (which is, for me, ultimately why I find
this article bigoted). This is extrapolated journalism drawn from a tiny
modicum of truth, which I find irresponsible. Unfortunately, this is the
status quo in American media.

------
fwapost
> “The Polish people think we were invading them,” said Masud Khan, one of the
> mosque’s leaders, recalling that time in an interview earlier this month.
> “We were a big threat to their religion and culture. Now their days are
> gone.”

He sounds like a conquer gloating over the corpses of the vanquished.

> The mosque’s leaders plan to put a minaret — a spire — on the building and
> use it to continue broadcasting a call to prayer five times a day.

Being woken up at sunrise by the azhan: one of the many joys diversity and
multiculturalism have to offer.

~~~
panglott
He does? The community was once 90% Polish Catholic, until those folks left
for wealthier suburbs. What part of that sounds like a gloating conquest?

