Across Europe, Worries on Islam Spread to Center

[DuaneBidoux]

BRUSSELS, Oct. 10 — Europe appears to be crossing an invisible line regarding its Muslim minorities: more people in the political mainstream are arguing that Islam cannot be reconciled with European values.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/europe/11muslims.html>


This is sad, but after having lived in France for one year I can truly understand where this is coming from.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

1. It's important to note, however, that US muslims are largely not extremist

...or at least no more so than Christian fundies are.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[smirkymonkey]

2. It's not even so much about terrorism as it is about a clash of

cultures (as explained in the article.) Islam is incompatible with progressive western societies. Any kind of religious fanatacism is incompatible, especially with some of the more progressive Northern European cultures.

[rodeodance]

4. yes, for a short article, it made some good points with good examples.

Mr. Gonman is hardly an extremist. In fact, he organized a protest last week in which 20 bars and restaurants closed on the night when a far-right party with an anti-Muslim message held a rally nearby.

His worry is shared by centrists across Europe angry at terror attacks in the name of religion on a continent that has largely abandoned it, and disturbed that any criticism of Islam or Muslim immigration provokes threats of violence.

For years those who raised their voices were mostly on the far right. Now those normally seen as moderates — ordinary people as well as politicians — are asking whether once unquestioned values of tolerance and multiculturalism should have limits.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain, a prominent Labor politician, seemed to sum up the moment when he wrote last week that he felt uncomfortable addressing women whose faces were covered with a veil. The veil, he wrote, is a “visible statement of separation and difference.”

[bemildred]

3. One could argue that ideological religion is incompatible with

"progressive European values". Singling out Islam as a problem in this context smacks of being historically tone deaf and culturally bigoted. Either attack them all (fundy religions) or leave them all alone.

[rayofreason]

5. What is "ideological religion"?

Are not all religions based on some ideological and metaphysical view of the universe in which at some point rationality must be suspended in favor of faith? Tolerant societies have no business "attacking religion" of any stripe - but they do have a vested interest in maintaining laws that reflect the overall values of the society. The most ideological religious zealot has a right to his or her beliefs as long as actions based on those beliefs do not violate the law or restrict the freedom of belief of others. The problem is that Islam demands primacy in law and society, much more so than any religion on the planet except Marxism (which is not longer capable of significant proselytizing). Should a taxi driver be allowed to refuse to take a homosexual passenger because some imam has ruled that it is haram to have contact with gays? Similar things are already happening.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/709262.html

Similarly, in the west we hold free speech as a high value. Artists like Serrano might get lots of criticism for a piece like Piss Christ, and even calls for cutting off funding. That is fine, and the twin side of free speech when the funding is public funding. But he did not live in fear of his life, and religious and secular authorities did not put an open bounty on his head as in the Rushdie case. If someone were to produce Piss Koran there would riots, killings, and the author would be in hiding or dead.

Unfortunately, many devout muslims view the rejection of the inflitration of sharia law into western civil law as a resctriction of da'wa and thus an attack on Islam. Until Islam as a whole accepts that it cannot demand a superior position and that liberal democracies will not permit the erosion of equality under the law and freedom of expression and conscience, problems will persist.

And as far as cultural bigotry is concerned, I plead guilty. I am deeply predjudiced and bigoted against the cultural practice of female "circumcision" and I strongly urge the passage of bigoted laws to prevent the practice. I also would have had a bigoted view of foot-binding, were the practice still continued.

[bemildred]

6. You ask me what "ideological religion" is,

and then mention Marxism? Hello? The issue is compulsion, individual free choice. I am not defending fundy Islam, I am saying it is not unique, not different in kind from other fundy religions, which also pine for political power and making everyone follow their religious "values".

[rayofreason]

8. other "fundies"

My point is that all religions are ideological, and and ideology should never be held against anyone unless that ideology forces them to impose on the freedom of conscience of others in society. Yes, many fundamentalists other than islamists would like to impose their values, and as soon as they do that I am in opposition to them. "Intelligent Design" is a case in point. Parents should be free to teach their children whatever creation stories they prefer, and to tell their kids to reject the scientific view of the history of the universe. But the moment that they try to put it into the classroom, giving it equal weight as science, masquerading as science, they have crossed the line and must be opposed.

The point is that no religion on the planet is currently as aggressive in imposing itself as Islam. At other times in history one could have said that about Christianity, but Christianity is not currently the major problem. Christians do not riot, burn, and murder across Christendom if an insulting, or even just satirical, image of Christ is displayed. Christians do not threaten the Jesus Seminar or Elaine Pagels with death for research into the historical Jesus, or Gnostic gospels, or any other non-normative (heretical?) views. What would you wager would happen to a scholar in muslim lands who disputed the traditional origins of the Koran and dared to publish those ideas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasr_Abu_Zayd

Even some scholars in the west feel threatened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Luxenberg

Regarding Marxism, yes I view Marxism as a religion. In fact, I view it as Europe's only indigenous major religion and the bastard stepchild of European rationalism, which also gave birth to science. Marxism has a clear eschatology, with an apocalyptic end time when history stops (no more class struggle), peace and justice reign supreme, all driven by the workings of its impersonal god, dialectical materialism, as revealed by its line of prophets, Marx being first in line in the pantheon. Marxism definitely calls for the suspension of rationality, with its cardboard, one-dimensional view of humans. But Marxism was tied to materials reward in the here, not the hereafter. So, more than any other religion, Marxism was vulnerable to an encounter with reality. The dismal failure of Marxist regimes - the historical record of mass slaughter of populations (to the point of democide in Kampuchea) and the economic and ecological disasters wrought by such regimes - are of such a magnitude that Marxism as a religion has lost almost all attraction. Not with everyone of course, but then there are still followers of Apocalyptic sects even after the predicted end of the world passes peacefully. So even with Marxism - there are still true believers despite the evidence. And this, more than anything, illustrates the irrational aspect of a belief in Marxism.

[bemildred]

9. Good, I do too. I view Marxism as a religion.

Where we disagree is with your characterization of the islamic fundies as the premier global threat to human liberty. However virulent they may be, they lack the means to impose their will on us, that is why they can only resort to random occasional acts of violence, it's the best they can do. It is ideologues in control of large military force that one needs to keep ones eye on, not terrorist gangs. N. Korea, for example is far more dangerous than al Qaeda, as is Pakistan.

[katty]

10. thank you for your clarity on this-good points

[bemildred]

11. Oh, goodness, I left out the USA, didn't I?

:hi:

[katty]

12. ha!

[Igel]

7. The IHT and the NYT carried essentially the same story.

But compare these two paragraphs:

For American consumption:
"Many experts note that there is a deep and troubled history between Islam and Europe, with the Crusaders and the Ottoman Empire jostling each other for centuries and bloodily defining the boundaries of Christianity and Islam."

For consumption elsewhere:
"Many experts note the centuries of bloodily defining the boundaries of Christianity and Islam, including the Muslim conquest of Palestine in 635 and the subsequent Crusades and the Moors' conquest of Spain and Portugal in the eighth century and the Christians' victory in 1492."

When I was in high school, we covered the Crusades (mockingly) and the Reconquista (indulgently ... those violent, imperialist Spanish). How each area went from Roman Empire to be part of Islamdom was rather a mystery, it seemed.

On edit: Since someone will for sure say since there's no link, and there obviously exists no way of searching the Internet that isn't too onerous for mere mortals, here's the IHT link, for however long it lasts: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/11/news/muslims.php

[fedsron2us]

13. Heart of darkness

Historically Europe has been one of the most dangerous places for outsiders to live. Many migrants who have settled in the continent over the past fifty years simply do not realise that surface appearence of a rational, tolerant civilisation is deceptive. The continent has a history of savage violence that is never that far from the surface. It can erupt suddenly and with little warning. The terrible events in Sebrenica show what can happen when the monster breaks its chains.

[closeupready]

14. I totally agree.

eom.