1971 Bangladesh War: Why Muslim Unity Failed and Identity Broke Pakistan

 

There is a line many of us grew up believing: Muslims cannot fight Muslims.

1971 shattered that illusion.

Pakistan was created in the name of religion. One faith. One dream. One identity. On paper, it should have held.
But history has a habit of exposing the difference between shared belief and shared power.

By March 1971, the crisis in East Pakistan was no longer about Islam. It was about language. Representation. Economic control. Political humiliation. When the election results of 1970 were not honored, a political crisis turned into a military confrontation. And then something darker happened.

It became a civil war.

And civil wars are never clean.

---

The Uncomfortable Truth: Violence Was Not One-Sided

Most discussions about 1971 are framed like courtroom arguments. One side accuses. The other defends. But the ground reality was chaotic and brutal.

• Many Bengali civilians were killed during military operations.

• Thousands of women suffered sexual violence.

• At the same time, non-Bengali Muslims (especially Biharis) were targeted, killed, and displaced.

• Entire neighborhoods were wiped out in retaliatory attacks.

This was not simply an army versus a population.
It was neighbor against neighbor. Muslim against Muslim. Fear feeding revenge.

The tragedy of 1971 is not that violence happened. Wars always produce violence.
The tragedy is that religious identity did not prevent it.

Because by then, religion was no longer the primary identity.

---

When Religion Meets Politics, Politics Usually Wins

The real geopolitical lesson of 1971 is uncomfortable but important.

States do not survive on ideology alone. They survive on:

• Fair political representation

• Economic balance

• Respect for cultural identity

• Transfer of power when voters demand it

East Pakistan felt politically ignored, economically exploited, and culturally dismissed. Once that perception hardened, the idea of Muslim unity became too abstract to compete with everyday grievances.

Identity shifted.

From Muslim
to Bengali Muslim
to simply Bengali.

That shift changed the strategic equation. Once identity localizes, separation becomes imaginable. Once separation becomes imaginable, conflict becomes likely.

India’s intervention accelerated the outcome. But the internal fracture came first.

External actors exploit cracks. They do not create them from nothing.

---

Why This Matters Today

There is a temptation, especially in political discourse, to use 1971 as a tool — either to accuse Bengalis of betrayal or to blame everything on foreign conspiracy.

Both narratives miss the real warning.

The lesson of 1971 is not about loyalty.
It is about state legitimacy.

When citizens begin to feel:

• unheard

• unequal

• excluded from power

identity reorganizes around whatever gives them dignity.

Religion. Language. Ethnicity. Region.

History shows this pattern again and again:

• Yugoslavia

• Sudan

• Syria

• Iraq

Shared faith did not stop fragmentation in any of them.

---

The Forgotten Tragedy: Stateless Muslims

One of the most overlooked consequences of 1971 remains the fate of the Bihari community.

Hundreds of thousands became stateless. Many lived in camps in Bangladesh for decades. They were Muslims. They supported Pakistan. Yet history left them stranded between two nations.

Their story is a reminder that geopolitical collapse always produces invisible victims — people who belong everywhere emotionally and nowhere politically.

---

The Strategic Lesson for Pakistan

If 1971 teaches anything, it is this:

Nations are not held together by slogans.
They are held together by fairness.

Unity requires:

• Political inclusion

• Provincial empowerment

• Economic balance

• Respect for linguistic and cultural identities

Security failures break borders.
But legitimacy failures break nations.

---

The Real Question for the Future

The debate should not be:
Who was more brutal in 1971?

The more important question is:
What conditions made a Muslim-majority country collapse into a civil war?

Because history rarely repeats itself exactly.

But it does echo.

And the echo of 1971 is simple, almost uncomfortable:

Faith can inspire a nation.
Only justice can hold it together.

Poland’s Rising Anti-Jewish Sentiment Reveals a Deeper Identity Crisis

 

A symbolic comparison between pre-war Jewish life in Poland and modern Poland, highlighting survey data showing rising negative attitudes toward Jews amid national identity tensions.

A new survey by Poland’s state research agency CBOS reports that 40 percent of Poles say they do not like Jews. The figure represents the highest recorded level of negative sentiment in decades. At the same time, positive views toward Jews have fallen to 22 percent, the lowest since 2006.

An eight percent annual rise in hostility is not statistical noise. It signals a shift in public mood.

The immediate explanation points toward the Israel–Palestinian conflict. Sympathy for Palestinians slightly exceeds sympathy for Israel, particularly among younger respondents. Analysts suggest that criticism of Israel’s actions may be influencing broader perceptions.

But reducing this shift to Middle Eastern geopolitics misses the deeper layer. Poland’s relationship with Jewish memory has always been structurally complex.

Before World War II, Poland was the epicenter of Jewish life in Europe. Approximately three million Jews lived there. Jewish religious scholarship, commerce, and cultural life were embedded in Polish cities and towns for centuries.

Then came occupation.

Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Extermination camps were constructed on Polish soil. Six million Polish citizens died in the war, including three million Jews. Poland as a state did not collaborate with Nazi Germany in the manner of Vichy France, yet historical research has documented instances of local anti-Jewish violence. Both realities coexist.

That coexistence complicates national memory.

Since the collapse of communism, Poland has emphasized its narrative of victimhood under both Nazi and Soviet domination. The emphasis is historically justified. Poland suffered immensely. Yet when national identity is anchored almost entirely in victimhood, it becomes sensitive to conversations that introduce nuance.

Debates over Holocaust memory in Poland have often centered on whether acknowledging episodes of Polish complicity undermines national dignity. The 2018 amendment to Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance law, which initially penalized suggestions of “Polish responsibility” for Nazi crimes, revealed how charged this terrain remains. The law was later softened, but the controversy exposed the underlying anxiety.

This matters for interpreting the survey data.

Today’s Poland has a very small Jewish population. Most citizens have limited personal contact with Jewish communities. In such contexts, Jews become more symbolic than social. They exist primarily in historical discourse rather than daily life.

When political tensions rise around Israel, criticism can easily blend with unresolved historical sensitivities. The boundary between state policy criticism and group hostility becomes fragile.

The survey also shows generational divergence. Younger respondents lean more pro-Palestinian. That pattern mirrors trends across Europe, where social media narratives and human rights framing strongly influence youth opinion. However, in Poland, this generational shift intersects with a distinct national memory debate about World War II and Polish suffering.

The result is not simple antisemitism in its traditional ideological form. It is something more layered.

It is a collision between:

• Historical trauma

• National pride

• Holocaust memory disputes

• Contemporary Middle Eastern politics

• Generational value shifts

When 40 percent express dislike toward Jews, the figure reflects more than foreign policy frustration. It reflects unresolved identity tensions inside the Polish narrative itself.

Nations that define themselves primarily through historical victimhood often struggle to integrate discussions of complexity. Acknowledging layered history does not diminish suffering. It strengthens credibility. Yet public discourse rarely rewards nuance.

Poland now faces a test. The survey is not merely a snapshot of prejudice. It is an indicator of how memory politics can influence present attitudes.

Europe has long believed that Holocaust education immunized it against renewed hostility toward Jews. The CBOS data suggests that historical memory, if politicized rather than internalized, can produce defensive reactions instead of reconciliation.

The question for Poland is not only about prejudice. It is about whether national identity can mature beyond a single-axis narrative of suffering and accommodate a fuller historical reckoning.

Public opinion shifts quickly. Memory, however, moves slowly.

The tension between the two may define Poland’s next chapter.

Europe’s Strategic Infantilism: Why the Real Crisis Is Dependence on Washington

The European Union and United States flags stand side by side with blurred institutional buildings in the background, symbolizing the structural alliance and strategic dependence shaping transatlantic relations.

 Europe’s strategic dependence on Washington did not begin with Donald Trump. It was built into the architecture of the Atlantic alliance after 1949, reinforced through NATO, the dollar system, intelligence sharing, and repeated crises that confirmed one lesson: when danger rises, America leads.

Trump did not create this dependence. He exposed it.

At Davos this year, relief swept through European policymakers after a crisis over Greenland appeared to cool. The immediate tension eased. The structural question did not. If even the specter of annexation by an ally fails to trigger strategic autonomy, what exactly would?

The deeper issue is not personality. It is posture.

For decades, Europe outsourced its hard power to the United States. The arrangement made sense. Washington carried the nuclear umbrella. It dominated global financial plumbing. It projected force in the Balkans. It set the tempo in Afghanistan. It now frames the Ukraine response. Each episode strengthened integration. Each episode reduced incentives for European strategic adulthood.

Dependence became rational.

Critics describe this as “cognitive.” That term flatters the problem. The dependency is structural. European militaries are interoperable with American systems. Intelligence flows through Five Eyes and NATO channels. Financial markets operate inside a dollar-based ecosystem that Washington can weaponize through sanctions or liquidity controls. Detaching from that infrastructure would not be symbolic. It would be disruptive, expensive, and politically destabilizing.

Autonomy sounds noble. It is not cheap.

A serious European pivot would require sustained defense spending above four percent of GDP. It would require fiscal integration across member states that still argue over debt ceilings. It would demand a credible nuclear doctrine independent of Washington. It would force uncomfortable conversations about energy security, industrial capacity, and rapid mobilization. These are not rhetorical steps. They are budgetary and electoral risks.

Comfort remains easier than sovereignty.

Meanwhile, power in Washington has become more concentrated. Successive administrations have expanded executive authority in trade, sanctions, and emergency powers. Congress often defers. Courts intervene selectively. Economic elites absorb or cushion domestic costs of trade wars. The presidency now moves faster than allied consensus structures can respond. That asymmetry unsettles European capitals.

Still, unease is not strategy.

European leaders split into camps. Some cultivate personal ties with American leadership, hoping influence will substitute for independence. Others cling to transatlantic nostalgia, convinced that continuity will return. A few speak of strategic autonomy but hesitate when budgets and voters react. The divisions reflect different histories, yet they share one constraint: no government wants to test whether Europe can stand alone under stress.

Perhaps that caution is rational. Or perhaps it signals strategic infantilism. I hesitate over the word, yet it fits. Europe expects protection without unpredictability, influence without vulnerability, partnership without asymmetry. History rarely grants such combinations.

In truth, the United States is behaving as a hegemon facing domestic transformation behaves. It experiments. It centralizes. It recalibrates alliances around its own political cycles. Superpowers do not freeze themselves for the comfort of partners. They adjust to internal incentives.

Europe must decide whether it adjusts with them or beyond them.

The debate should not revolve around Trump, or any single leader. The question is structural. Does Europe accept that strategic adulthood carries costs that voters may resist? Or does it continue to interpret American politics as weather, hoping storms pass without forcing architectural change?

Strategic autonomy is possible. It is not inevitable. It requires sacrifice measured in percentages of GDP, in political capital, in industrial redesign. Until those sacrifices become acceptable, dependence will remain.

And dependence, once normalized, rarely feels like crisis. It feels like routine.

The real test will arrive not during a speech in Davos, nor during a diplomatic scare over Arctic territory, but during the next emergency when Washington hesitates. On that day, Europe will discover whether its reliance was partnership or postponement.

The difference will matter.

When Survival Becomes an Argument: How History Is Used to Justify Power

 The claim is simple, powerful, and emotionally airtight:

They tried to erase us. We survived. Therefore, history has spoken.

It appears again and again in different forms, but the structure never changes. A list of persecutions. A rhythm of endurance. A final conclusion that sounds less like opinion and more like destiny: the Jewish people are not temporary.

To understand why this argument resonates so strongly—and why it shuts down debate—we need to look at what it’s really doing.

A compressed history turned into moral authority

The narrative compresses centuries into a single arc. Empires, exile, discriminatory laws, pogroms, genocide, modern warfare. Each item is historically grounded. None of them are invented.

But compression matters. When history is flattened into a single line of suffering followed by survival, it stops being context and starts functioning as proof. Survival becomes evidence not only of endurance, but of correctness. Of entitlement. Of exemption.

At that point, the story is no longer descriptive. It’s prescriptive.

From memory to immunity

Collective memory is essential. Jewish history, in particular, carries scars that are not theoretical. Erasure was attempted repeatedly, sometimes with bureaucratic efficiency, sometimes with industrial brutality.

That history explains fear. It explains vigilance. It explains why many Jews experience criticism not as policy disagreement but as an echo of older threats.

But there is a subtle shift that often goes unexamined: when memory turns into immunity.

If survival itself is treated as a moral verdict, then power becomes retroactively justified. Any opposition can be read not as dissent, but as continuation of the same ancient hostility. International law, human rights language, even factual criticism are reinterpreted through a single lens: they want us gone.

This is how history stops informing judgment and starts replacing it.

Theology enters, debate exits

In many public responses to this narrative, survival is framed not only historically but theologically. Covenant language appears. Divine protection. Fulfilled prophecy. Even messianic expectations, sometimes imposed from outside Judaism itself.

Once the argument moves into that space, disagreement becomes almost impossible. Political criticism is no longer about borders, conduct, or accountability. It becomes a challenge to God’s will. At that point, compromise looks like betrayal, and restraint looks like disbelief.

This is not unique to Judaism. Every religious tradition struggles with the temptation to sacralize power once it has it. But the effect is the same: politics becomes untouchable.

The missing distinction: people versus power

One distinction is consistently blurred in this discourse: the difference between a people and a state.

Jewish survival is a civilizational fact. The policies of a modern nation-state are contingent, debatable, and subject to moral scrutiny. One does not cancel the other.

A people can endure extraordinary injustice and still be responsible for how it treats others when the balance of power shifts. History offers countless examples. Survival does not inoculate anyone against moral failure.

Acknowledging this does not deny Jewish suffering. It simply refuses to turn suffering into a perpetual license.

Why this narrative feels unassailable

The reason this story works so well is that it closes the circle emotionally. It explains the past, interprets the present, and forecloses the future. If history has already “delivered its verdict,” then nothing new needs to be heard.

But history does not deliver verdicts. People do. And they do so in real time, with consequences for real human beings.

Remembering erasure should deepen moral sensitivity, not narrow it. If the lesson of history is survival alone, then history has been reduced to endurance without ethics.

The harder lesson is this: survival with power is a different test than survival without it. Passing one does not guarantee passing the other.

That question remains open. And it should.

How to Manage SaaS Spend to Reclaim Your Bottom Line

 

A futuristic conceptual image depicting the complexity of corporate subscription management, featuring a 38% wasted spend metric and digital overlays of cloud software icons.

The digital workspace is currently suffering from a silent, fiscal hemorrhage. While most executives believe their software budgets are under control, the reality is a chaotic accumulation of "ghost" subscriptions and overlapping licenses. You likely signed up for a single project management tool three years ago, yet today, your finance department is tracking fifteen different platforms that essentially perform the same task. The accumulation of these minor oversights results in a massive drain on corporate resources. How many thousands of dollars is your organization currently wasting on seats that no one occupies?

​The Credible Foundation for Those Who Manage SaaS Spend

​The necessity of rigorous financial oversight is backed by startling data from recent intelligence and market reports. According to 2025 industry audits, the average enterprise now utilizes over 300 SaaS applications, yet approximately 38% of these licenses remain completely unused or underutilized. Furthermore, Gartner reports indicate that through 2026, organizations that fail to centrally manage SaaS spend will overspend on their software budgets by at least 25%. The avoidance of centralized procurement is no longer a minor inefficiency; it is a systemic risk to profitability.

​The Labyrinth of Subscription Inertia

​Navigating the modern software landscape is akin to wandering through a digital labyrinth where every turn requires a new credit card entry. Initially, the decentralization of software procurement seemed like a victory for departmental agility. Marketing bought their tools, Engineering bought theirs, and HR followed suit. However, this "Shadow IT" has created a fragmented ecosystem where visibility is impossible.

​The primary challenge is not the cost of a single license, but the cumulative weight of Subscription Inertia. This is the phenomenon where recurring payments continue indefinitely simply because the effort to audit them exceeds the perceived immediate savings. To break this cycle, an analytical approach is required. You must treat your software stack as a living organism that requires constant pruning. If a tool does not provide a measurable "Information Gain" or a direct boost to your E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness), its elimination is mandatory.

​Managing SaaS spend without a centralized dashboard is like trying to catch rain with a sieve; the volume of incoming data ensures that the most valuable resources inevitably slip through the mesh. We often see companies paying for "Premium" tiers for employees who only require basic access. Does your team really need the enterprise-grade AI suite for basic spreadsheet entry? Probably not. The reclamation of institutional control begins with the cold, hard data of usage logs.

​Conclusion: A Passionate Mandate for Fiscal Precision

​The era of "growth at all costs" has been replaced by an era of operational excellence. To manage SaaS spend effectively is to demonstrate a commitment to the long-term health of your enterprise. It requires the courage to cut "bloatware" and the discipline to enforce strict procurement protocols. By implementing a rigorous audit today, you are not merely saving money; you are sharpening your organization's competitive edge. The optimization of your digital infrastructure is the most direct path to sustainable profit.

Why Germany Is Questioning Its Gold Stored in the United States

 

A secure vault filled with gold bars representing Germany’s gold reserves stored in the United States, highlighting growing debate over trust, sovereignty, and global finance in 2026.

Germany’s debate over repatriating its gold from the United States is often framed as a technical or symbolic issue. It is neither. It is a quiet referendum on whether the post-war financial order still rests on trust—or merely habit.

Roughly 37 percent of Germany’s gold reserves, about 1,236 metric tons, remain stored in the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This arrangement dates back to the Cold War, when keeping gold close to the dollar system made strategic sense. Europe needed liquidity. The United States was the uncontested anchor of global finance. No one questioned custody.

That era is over.

From Cold War logic to 2026 anxiety

Germany is not panicking. The Bundesbank has publicly reiterated confidence in U.S. custodianship and insists there is no plan for a sudden withdrawal. But the political and economic conversation has shifted. What once lived on the fringes of eurosceptic debate has moved into the mainstream.

The reason is not ideology. It is risk assessment.

Transatlantic relations are no longer predictable. Trade disputes are sharper. Sanctions are used more casually. Strategic assets are increasingly discussed in terms of leverage rather than stewardship. In this environment, economists such as Emanuel Mönch argue that keeping a nation’s ultimate financial insurance abroad introduces an unnecessary vulnerability.

Gold, after all, is not an investment vehicle. It is a last-resort asset—the thing states rely on when trust in everything else begins to fray.

Why gold suddenly feels relevant again

The surge in gold prices—crossing $5,100 per ounce in early 2026—has amplified the debate. Price alone does not change policy, but it sharpens perception. When gold was cheap and dormant, its location felt abstract. At current valuations, its physical custody feels tangible again.

This matters because gold plays a psychological role in monetary systems. It does not back the euro. It does not determine interest rates. But it signals sovereignty. It is the asset of last confidence, held precisely because systems fail.

And systems, increasingly, feel fragile.

What the public reaction reveals

The social media comments you referenced—jokes about missing gold, Fort Knox, pallets without bullion, or distrust of U.S. leadership—are not serious allegations. They are something more revealing: expressions of erosion of institutional trust.

When people joke that “the gold is already gone,” they are not claiming theft. They are voicing a belief that transparency is no longer guaranteed and that political volatility can infect even the most sacred institutions.

Repeated references to Donald Trump are not about one individual. They function as shorthand for a deeper concern: that continuity of governance in the United States can no longer be taken for granted across administrations.

For countries holding assets abroad, that uncertainty matters.

This is not about crashing the U.S. economy

One misconception deserves clearing up. Germany repatriating its gold would not collapse the U.S. financial system. Even a full withdrawal would be manageable in accounting terms. Markets would adjust. The dollar would survive.

But something else would be damaged: the perception of the United States as a neutral, unquestioned custodian of foreign wealth.

That perception is foundational. It is why central banks park reserves in New York. It is why the dollar remains dominant. It is why sanctions work.

Once custodianship becomes politicized—or merely perceived as politicized—trust decays quietly, then suddenly.

The real risk Germany is weighing

Germany’s dilemma is not logistical. It is strategic.

Leaving gold in the U.S. signals confidence in the existing order. Bringing it home signals hedging against its erosion. Neither choice is neutral.

A repatriation would not mean hostility toward Washington. It would mean something subtler and more consequential: that even close allies no longer assume permanence in U.S. stewardship.

That message would be heard far beyond Berlin.

A signal to the world

Other countries are watching. Not because they plan to follow Germany immediately, but because Germany is conservative by design. It does not move abruptly. It does not posture lightly. When Germany debates gold, it debates the architecture of trust itself.

This is why the discussion matters globally. Not because of bars in vaults, but because of what they represent: confidence in rules, continuity, and restraint.

If Germany eventually decides that its gold is safer at home, it will mark a shift from a world built on assumption to one built on precaution.

And that shift, once it begins, rarely stops with gold.

Religious Freedom Is a Two-Way Street: A Muslim View on Public Prayer and Secular Law

 

Public debate is rarely honest when religion, policing, and protest collide. Emotions rise fast. Facts slow things down. And moral consistency is usually the first casualty.

The recent incident in Sydney, where a group of Muslims prayed in a public square after separating from a protest, has triggered exactly this kind of debate. Australia’s Islamophobia Envoy has described the police response as excessive and humiliating. Many commentators, however, argue the opposite: that public streets are not places of worship, and that police were enforcing secular law, not targeting a religion.

Both sides are talking past each other. And Muslims, especially those of us who live or comment from Muslim-majority countries, need to confront an uncomfortable truth before demanding moral clarity from others.

Religious freedom is a two-way street. You cannot demand abroad what you deny at home.

Two Things Can Be True at the Same Time

Let us start with a principle that online outrage rarely allows.

First, police conduct should always be scrutinised. If force was used without a lawful order, that deserves investigation. No democracy should be allergic to accountability.

Second, public street prayer during protests is not an Islamic obligation. It is not required by faith. It is not mandated by scripture. And it is certainly not the only way to practise Islam with dignity.

Holding these two positions simultaneously is not betrayal. It is maturity.

What weakens the Muslim case internationally is not criticism of police power. It is the insistence that any challenge to public religious display equals hostility to Islam.

Islam Does Not Require the Street

Islam does not command Muslims to pray anywhere, anytime, regardless of context. Prayer in Islam is governed by intention, cleanliness, and order. Streets are, by definition, public thoroughfares. They exist for shared civic use. That is why even in Muslim jurisprudence, mosques, homes, and designated spaces are preferred.

Turning prayer into a political symbol may feel empowering, but symbolism is not theology. When worship is folded into protest choreography, outsiders are not wrong to question whether faith is being instrumentalised.

This matters because once worship becomes spectacle, the line between religious freedom and political theatre blurs. Secular societies are especially sensitive to that line.

The Comparison Everyone Avoids

Now comes the part many Muslims would rather skip.

In Pakistan, where I live, non-Muslims do not enjoy the same public religious freedoms that Muslims demand in Western countries.

A Christian kneeling to pray on a public footpath in Karachi would not be met with philosophical debate about secularism. The response would be swift, coercive, and unapologetic. No envoy. No national soul-searching. No viral outrage in defence of minority rights.

This is not a hypothetical. It is lived reality.

In many Muslim-majority countries:

Public religious expression is restricted for minorities.

Blasphemy laws loom over daily life.

The state openly privileges one faith.

Yet when Muslims face limits in secular democracies, the language instantly shifts to persecution.

That asymmetry is not lost on the wider public.

Secularism Is Not Islamophobia

Australia is a secular country. That does not mean anti-religious. It means the law regulates public space before belief systems do.

Secularism places boundaries on all religions equally. It does not single Islam out. Christians cannot block streets for mass worship either. Nor can atheists turn public squares into ideological rallies without permits.

When Muslims treat secular enforcement as religious hostility, they unintentionally confirm a suspicion many already hold: that Islam seeks exception, not equality.

That perception, fair or not, fuels resentment far more than any police action.

The Real Damage Is Credibility

The strongest case against Islamophobia is moral consistency. And this is where Muslim advocacy often collapses.

It is difficult to argue for expansive religious liberty in Sydney while remaining silent about:

Ahmadis in Pakistan,

Christians in Egypt,

Baháʼís in Iran,

atheists across the Muslim world.

Western audiences notice this silence. They may not articulate it politely, but they feel it instinctively.

The issue is not whether Muslims deserve rights. Of course they do. The issue is whether demands are grounded in universal principles or selective outrage.

A Better Muslim Argument

A stronger, more honest Muslim position would sound like this:

Yes, police should be accountable.

Yes, dignity matters.

But no, public streets are not mosques.

And yes, Muslim societies must reform before lecturing others.

That argument does not weaken Islam. It strengthens it.

Islam does not need public spectacle to survive. It needs moral credibility. And credibility is built by applying the same standards inward that we demand outward.

Conclusion: Equality Requires Restraint

Religious freedom is not unlimited expression. It is negotiated coexistence. Secular societies manage diversity by drawing lines in public space. Religious societies manage it by drawing lines around minorities.

If Muslims want secular states to respect faith, Muslims must first respect pluralism where they hold power.

Until then, every demand for accommodation abroad will be met with the same question, quietly but firmly:

Would you allow this at home?

That question, more than any police baton or comment thread, is what Muslims must answer.