very long (apologies)
Apologies, I've been busy today. I'll tone down the sarcasm, and be more serious. Honestly.
k-punk said:
But who DOESN'T think that western civilization is immoral and decadent and should be brought to an end? This view is not only held by Muslims.
Well, I would disagree strongly that this is any kind of majority or mass view held by Westerners in general.
As I said before, I'm more worried about the eschatological fantasies of the US bible belt, i.e. people who actually do have power in the world. Only 11% of British muslims were prepared to commit to a CONDITIONAL endorsement of violence, i.e. 'IF necessary by violence'; presumably even fewer would actually act violently.
Two points: (1) the actual political power of the fundamentalist Christians is, in my opinion, overstated. They are a vote farm for the Republican party in the way that blacks are for the Democrats. In power the Republicans pay little more than lip service to their fantasies; for the most part the last twelve years of Republican control of Congress has relentlessly about servicing corporate interests. That's my take. (2) (and this relates to one of your later points, too) Committed minorities are of greater importance than apathetic majorities in setting the agenda. As an example, see the US government's hard-line position on Cuban relations over the last forty-five years - essentially dictated by the exile leadership in Miami, because they are the ones who care. More particularly on this topic, it is not so simple a matter as saying "well, even fewer would be prepared to act violently", because what characterizes violent movements are a relatively small pool of people prepared to commit violence, larger groups of active supporters, larger yet numbers of sympathizers, and larger yet numbers of those who feel passive on the issue.
Depends on how you measure trends really. And the onus was on you to prove that things would get worse, that all, most or a significant proportion of those not now pledged to violence would change their views or, more importantly, their actions.
Well, it is impossible for me to prove that things will get worse, because I can't predict the future. All I can do is try to make an informed guess as to how things will turn out.
I am pessimistic, though. Why am I pessimistic? Well, I see evidence of greater polarity between the West and the Muslim world (I will return to your question about monoliths later), as well as greater internal polarization between Muslims and non-Muslims within Europe.
How so? Internationally, we see: the American military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the festering sore of Israel-Pakistan, recent election triumphs by Islamists such as the election of Ahmadinejad in Iran, the landslide victory by Hamas, the far-better-than-expected results by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and the triumph of sectarian religious parties in the Iraqi elections (of course, much of this success is attributable to domestic issues, particularly corruption), and the current imbroglio over the cartoons, which in some cases has a strong whiff of dictatorial types fanning the flames of popular passions.
Internally to Europe, I see several main causes of concern. One is the growing strength of far right parties across most Western European nations, as a by-product, in my opinion, of the fear of the consequences of demographic change, which has been explicitly linked to the growth of the Muslim minorities by a number of these parties (for instance,
this article is quite good on how the Danish People's Party became the third biggest party in Denmark). Two, changes in communications (particularly the internet and satellite television) have not only facilitated the spread of Western ideas and concepts to the rest of the world, but have also brought ideas from the rest of the world to the West. In the context of the Muslim minorities of Europe, this has meant more direct contact with the wellspring of Muslim orthodoxy in the Middle East. Third, Islam has become tied in with
identity politics, which means that these identity crises become tied in with the wider issues. For instance, Islam has begun to supercede ethnic ancestry as the cornerstone of identity ('French Muslim' for 'French Arab', or 'British Muslim' for 'British Asian'). In cases like the French riots, the rioters are identified (and identify themselves) as 'Muslims' when they may be 'Muslim' to the degree that many Troubles-era Ulster gunmen were 'Protestant' or 'Catholic' (ie not much at all), but this identification ties in with the wider issues.
The creation of DIY Salafist ideology is also important, especially when it is adapted and acted on. Finally, actual violence in the name of Islam within Western Europe has changed things. It is a new phenomenon, something that few people probably thought of only fifteen years ago, and it has already changed the political and social landscape. My opinion is that more of these attacks are coming, and that the process of polarization will continue to worsen. Of course, I could be wrong.
What do you mean by successful integration though? And are the problems to do with religion or poverty?
Successful integration generally means achieving parity economically and educationally, but also means things like success in politics and high rates of out-marriage (particularly for the second-generation). With regards to Muslims within Europe, we see that these things are not happening; that unemployment rates are well above the national averages (particularly for young men), that educational achievement is abysmal compared to national averages, high proportions live in poverty, inter-marriage rates are low, and housing segregation, in some places more than others, is on the increase. The seeming intractability, involving different ethnic groups in different European societies, is at least partly to do with the effects of the religion, as well as to discrimination (although racism is not the whole explanation; if it were, why do Hindus and Sikhs perform so much better in employment and education than South Asian Muslims?)
What are you suggesting actually? That there's some innate and inevitable tendency towards violence in Muslim people? What is your account of how this tendency got there? Is it biological, cultural?
Well, it is not biological, because 'Muslim' is not a biological category. Islam is a religion with a strong theocratic strand,
sharia, and there are plenty of people who believe in its implementation, and a portion who are prepared to use violence to impose it and enforce it. Numbers and proportions may vary from place to place, but it is clear that you can pick out arguments from the Koran to make the case that violence in the cause of the Islamic state is justified (for instance, consider the Abu Hamza case, where the defence hinges on the fact that Hamza was merely quoting and interpreting the Koran and the Hadiths in the speeches for which he is being charged).
Are all Muslims indelibly inclined to violence? No, clearly not. Can the case be made that, at least at this point in time, there are more Muslims than members of other religions that see violence for religious purposes as justified? Yes, I think so.
Meanwhile, 'ours' are full of sweetness and light. If it weren't for those towel-heads (who by the way we have just got back from bombing to kingdom come in two of 'their' countries), we could go back to our own peacable history of pogroms, holocausts and world wars, I suppose.
I wasn't excluding European history from that point at all. The history of inter-communal violence in Europe is truely gruesome.