Islam, Violence, Liberalism, and the West

[Spartacus]

This thread is intended to be a place for serious and sustained discussion about the relationship between Islam and violence as well as how Western societies should attempt to deal with the problem. I don't mind a slightly flippant or even a blatant spam post once in a while to help lighten the mood, but please think twice about diverting the thread, especially if you haven't paid your dues through more serious posts.

This thread could probably also be explored in the Islam subforum, but (1) because I expect this discussion to be primarily between Christians and atheists or agnostics rather than between either of those groups and Islam and (2) because it involves discussions of policy and not just religious doctrines, it fits better in Civics. If the mods disagree, they can move it.

OK, with those preliminary notes out of the way, a quick overview of the problem:

Muslim residents in Western countries pose a particular risk to security insofar as they can be induced by certain ideologies associated with or inspired by elements of Islam to commit acts of violence ultimately aimed at establishing a particular kind of Islamic theocracy in Western countries. Policy proposals aimed at reducing the likelihood of such violence usually points in one of two directions: liberal or illiberal. They are either aimed at achieving a more perfect assimilation of Muslims into the existing liberal society, or they involve the curbing of liberties, particularly of Muslims.

With respect to their stated goal-- reducing terroristic violence-- each policy direction is fundamentally plausible, at least at first glance. By making Muslims full and productive participants in liberal society, the sociopolitical motivations for undermining that society are substantially diminished. By isolating and monitoring Muslims, the opportunities to engage in violence are substantially diminished. These are also mutually exclusive solutions. If we set them apart form society, we cannot expect them to perceive themselves as full and productive participants in the liberal order. If we try to assimilate them into our society and grant them all our customary liberties, we will inevitably allow them more opportunities to commit violence.

But on a deeper level, the argument is not actually about what is to be done about religious terrorism, but whether Muslims as such can be successfully integrated into Western society. The liberal solution assumes that they can be, and that any potentially troublesome elements of Islam can be discarded. The illiberal solution assumes that there are troublesome elements of Islam that we cannot expect Western Muslims to entirely abandon.

There's a lot more that I could write about this topic, not least about how my knowledge of the historical treatment of Catholics in America leads me to look on American Muslims with types of sympathy as well as suspicion that are more complex than I usually see from this sort of discussion... but before I even think about typing all that out, I want to open the thread for discussion. Does anyone think I've fundamentally mis-characterized the debate or the two basic sides? Is there anyone who thinks there is another approach that I'm neglecting?

[seer]

But on a deeper level, the argument is not actually about what is to be done about religious terrorism, but whether Muslims as such can be successfully integrated into Western society. The liberal solution assumes that they can be, and that any potentially troublesome elements of Islam can be discarded. The illiberal solution assumes that there are troublesome elements of Islam that we cannot expect Western Muslims to entirely abandon.

That is the bottom line isn't. It seems here in the US Muslims have generally integrated quite well. But not so much in Europe. I'm not sure why there is such a difference - perhaps because of the sheer numbers in Europe. Of course there is a third option, one I think the liberal view has opened the door wide too - the Islamization of Europe, the final loss of Western Culture.

[Cow Poke]

I'll read the OP several more times before commenting.

[Adrift]

Can you more plainly explain the approach you're going for? One does not have to be il-liberal, as far as I can tell, to be concerned about Islamic violence...if that is what you're positing. Also, what we mean by liberal in America may not exactly comport to what is considered liberal in another country.

My main concern, as someone who views himself relatively apolitical, but mostly socially conservative (though liberal in quite a few ways) is that Islam, as a religion, does posit and promote relatively violent and/or socially anti-egalitarian views, and that there is an agenda within Islam to set up a sort of Islamic way of doing things in Western countries. I also think there is a tendency, built into Islam, that prohibits integration into the host nation. I don't think this is at all like Catholicism, and I'm having a hard time seeing the similarities you're positing. Catholics, by and large, integrate quite fine into their host nations. Perhaps that hasn't always been true if we go back far enough, but we're talking centuries in that case, not decades. And if we were to go back that far (say, to the period of the conquistadors) it was certainly in violent and all-encompassing ways.

At the same time, I'm concerned about the fact that the stifling of Islamicism can have a net negative effect on religion in general. When a nation makes sanction on what Islam can teach and do, even its radical views, how will that ripple down to Judaism and Christianity. And I do believe that it will ripple down. For every banning of a simple hijab in a public place (rather than a full on burqa), how long till they ban a Jewish yamaka or a Christian cross?

[Adrift]

That is the bottom line isn't. It seems here in the US Muslims have generally integrated quite well. But not so much in Europe. I'm not sure why there is such a difference - perhaps because of the sheer numbers in Europe. Of course there is a third option, one I think the liberal view has opened the door wide too - the Islamization of Europe, the final loss of Western Culture.

I think it probably has to do with, maybe, the ease of access to Europe. You have to cross a vast ocean to get to America, which isn't easy to do, and then you have to be naturalized into the country. Then you face a relatively strong Christian majority (though that is finally weakening) which requires a bit of Westernized integration into one's society in order to be successful in one's occupation. That doesn't mean that one needs to be Christian, per se', but that one needs to comport themselves by a certain Western standard that has been made possible by way of Christianity. A standard that most non-Christians in America relish, and take for granted. These things include free speech, freedom of expression, and a general sense of doing unto others as you'd have done unto yourself. These things run contrary to fundamental aspects of Islam.

[Spartacus]

Can you more plainly explain the approach you're going for? One does not have to be il-liberal, as far as I can tell, to be concerned about Islamic violence...if that is what you're positing. Also, what we mean by liberal in America may not exactly comport to what is considered liberal in another country.

I posited both liberal and illiberal approaches to addressing Islamic violence. My goal in this thread is to try to elaborate on both of them and examine the explanatory power of their underlying hypotheses. I sort of lean toward the liberal approach (at the very least, I think there's some profit to be gained from looking at it more closely), but I think both are ultimately inadequate.

My main concern, as someone who views himself relatively apolitical, but mostly socially conservative (though liberal in quite a few ways) is that Islam, as a religion, does posit and promote relatively violent and/or socially anti-egalitarian views, and that there is an agenda within Islam to set up a sort of Islamic way of doing things in Western countries. I also think there is a tendency, built into Islam, that prohibits integration into the host nation. I don't think this is at all like Catholicism, and I'm having a hard time seeing the similarities you're positing. Catholics, by and large, integrate quite fine into their host nations. Perhaps that hasn't always been true if we go back far enough, but we're talking centuries in that case, not decades. And if we were to go back that far (say, to the period of the conquistadors) it was certainly in violent and all-encompassing ways.

Between the American foounding and the election of JFK, there was always some contingent of people who asserted that Catholicism is ultimately antithetical to democratic forms of government, that it was essentially anti-egalitarian, that it favored the use of violence in religious conversions, and so on. And to be fair, there were Catholics who believed the same things. If nowhere else, it's possible to find anti-liberal statements in the Syllabus of Errors. The relationship of Catholicism to liberal or democratic forms of government is not simple, and it took some time for Catholicism to come to terms with modern democracy (though the anticlerical elements in most of the nationalist/democratic movements in Europe may have also had something to do with it).

I'm sympathetic to Western Muslims because I know Catholics were once held in deep suspicion about the implications of their religion for their capacity to engage in democratic forms of government in good faith. I'm suspicious because some of the crucial mechanisms for Catholicism's acceptance of modern democracy (including the idea of development of doctrine and the ability to have a binding council) are seemingly not available to Islam.

[Adrift]

I posited both liberal and illiberal approaches to addressing Islamic violence. My goal in this thread is to try to elaborate on both of them and examine the explanatory power of their underlying hypotheses. I sort of lean toward the liberal approach (at the very least, I think there's some profit to be gained from looking at it more closely), but I think both are ultimately inadequate.



Between the American foounding and the election of JFK, there was always some contingent of people who asserted that Catholicism is ultimately antithetical to democratic forms of government, that it was essentially anti-egalitarian, that it favored the use of violence in religious conversions, and so on. And to be fair, there were Catholics who believed the same things. If nowhere else, it's possible to find anti-liberal statements in the Syllabus of Errors. The relationship of Catholicism to liberal or democratic forms of government is not simple, and it took some time for Catholicism to come to terms with modern democracy (though the anticlerical elements in most of the nationalist/democratic movements in Europe may have also had something to do with it).

I'm sympathetic to Western Muslims because I know Catholics were once held in deep suspicion about the implications of their religion for their capacity to engage in democratic forms of government in good faith. I'm suspicious because some of the crucial mechanisms for Catholicism's acceptance of modern democracy (including the idea of development of doctrine and the ability to have a binding council) are seemingly not available to Islam.

I think that a shared belief in Christ was able to overcome a lot of those hurtles. What we're dealing with in Islam is likely fundamentally different in kind. We may be seeing a much more conquistador sense of entitlement and anti-integration, rather than a post-enlightenment sense of relatability. I don't think it's fair to judge the Islamic incursion into Western society with pre-JFK anti-Catholicism. As always, though, I think a moderate hand needs to be dealt in these sorts of things for the reason I outlined above.

[Spartacus]

I think it probably has to do with, maybe, the ease of access to Europe. You have to cross a vast ocean to get to America, which isn't easy to do, and then you have to be naturalized into the country. Then you face a relatively strong Christian majority (though that is finally weakening) which requires a bit of Westernized integration into one's society in order to be successful in one's occupation. That doesn't mean that one needs to be Christian, per se', but that one needs to comport themselves by a certain Western standard that has been made possible by way of Christianity. A standard that most non-Christians in America relish, and take for granted. These things include free speech, freedom of expression, and a general sense of doing unto others as you'd have done unto yourself. These things run contrary to fundamental aspects of Islam.

America has also successfully integrated several previous waves of immigrants from different parts of the world and different cultures. There's also the idea that, while other nations are defined by a shared cultural heritage or history, America is defined by an idea. Each successive wave of immigrants could participate in making that idea a reality, and their own heritage played a role in how they did that: because America is an idea and not just a heritage, it's been a lot easier for us to integrate. But without a clear sense of what the idea of Europe is, it will be rather hard for them to encourage immigration. In fact, I think that's one of the bigger obstacles to the "liberal solution" in Europe: they are trying to engage disaffected young people in society so that they aren't drawn to terrorism, but it's not clear what they are trying to get them to participate in beyond a hedonistic market economy.

[demi-conservative]

Does anyone think I've fundamentally mis-characterized the debate or the two basic sides?

Yes! War.

There is state of declared or undeclared war between some Muslim groups and West (or many Western countries). When declared basically it is 'we're going to smash/conquer your side completely!!!'

So to miss out state of war and talk tame about only 'freedom of religion', 'violence' and 'assimilation' misses out multiple dimensions. Big time error!!!

The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.

[Spartacus]

That's an interesting issue: Armed conflict between Western nations and Islamist regimes is compatible with both the liberal and illiberal domestic means of stopping terrorist attacks in Western countries, but the way we approach it will probably differ depending on whether we approach it based on liberal or illberal assumptions. For that reason, I'd rather hold off on discussing international armed conflict.

Unless you think I'm misunderstanding your point, in which case I ask you to explain in detail.

[Jaecp]

That is the bottom line isn't. It seems here in the US Muslims have generally integrated quite well. But not so much in Europe. I'm not sure why there is such a difference - perhaps because of the sheer numbers in Europe. Of course there is a third option, one I think the liberal view has opened the door wide too - the Islamization of Europe, the final loss of Western Culture.

I would personally chock it up to why you see Mexican Flags, but not others in the states. There are much larger blocks, with a much closer social tie in American Mexicans and European Muslim's. The crossing of the Atlantic forces a higher level of integration because it's the only good option in most places

[Adrift]

America has also successfully integrated several previous waves of immigrants from different parts of the world and different cultures. There's also the idea that, while other nations are defined by a shared cultural heritage or history, America is defined by an idea. Each successive wave of immigrants could participate in making that idea a reality, and their own heritage played a role in how they did that: because America is an idea and not just a heritage, it's been a lot easier for us to integrate. But without a clear sense of what the idea of Europe is, it will be rather hard for them to encourage immigration. In fact, I think that's one of the bigger obstacles to the "liberal solution" in Europe: they are trying to engage disaffected young people in society so that they aren't drawn to terrorism, but it's not clear what they are trying to get them to participate in beyond a hedonistic market economy.

I think it may be the case that Muslim immigrants may be different in kind. Previous waves of immigration involved people groups with similar religious, and by way of religion, secular values. Islam, especially the style of fundamentalist Islam that has been made popular of late, isn't so accommodating to Western values. There was a period of time when that wasn't the case, but fundamentalist Islam appears to be growing, and unlike fundamentalist Christianity (which is not nearly as radically violent), this appears to be problematic. Now, again, if fundamentalist Christianity, as we know it today, had been as violent as past eras, say conquistador period Christianity, we wouldn't be comparing apples to oranges, but as it stands, it seems we are. Not that conquistador period Catholic Christianity did not have those who were anti-violence. It did. It's important that we note that Christianity was not the monster in the New World that it often is portrayed as being. In fact, a number of courageous Catholic priests were responsible for protecting native tribes from the onslaught of Catholic laymen, but unfortunately we may be seeing history repeating itself to some degree.

[MaxVel]

Interesting thread, and I appreciate the tone and approach you've adopted, Spartacus.

A few things to add to the mix:

Are we interpreting Islam through the correct lens? We tend to look at Islam as a religion in the Western sense - something you basically practice in private, which doesn't necessarily affect your public and political views or behaviour. So two Catholics (say) could hold a range of views on a number of social and political issues, but not see that as any contradiction with their Catholicism.

Is that true to the same (or any) extent of Islam? Do Muslims see themselves as being free to choose their views in these areas? Do they think that they can reject some of Islam's moral standards or teachings and still be Muslim?

I think that the answer to both these questions is by and large, no. Islam is, much more than Western-style religion, a non-compromising moral, ethical and political system. There's submission to Allah, either voluntarily or enforced, and that's it. Anything else is not Islam.

Given that, Muslims are not going to integrate in the normal sense of the word. They're not going to discard some of their values and ways, and adopt the majority culture's values and ways to any significant extent. They may tolerate differences, but only in so far as they can't produce full compliance with Islam in the society they're in.

Anecdotally, here in Thailand, the Muslim minority is well known to try to 'colonise' new areas, and, when they have reached a majority, begin to enforce a Muslim lifestyle in the new area - no selling pork, no dogs as pets, no alcohol, etc. They don't mix much socially or culturally - you won't see a Muslim attend a Buddhist funeral, if a Buddhist wants to marry a Muslim they must convert, they want their children to wear a hijab at school, and so on.


Another issue is the Muslim practice of taqiya - dissembling or lying about their real motives and goals when in danger - "In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly"

This creates legitimate doubt, at least, about just how much a Muslim who has integrated really has integrated - if they believe in taqiya, how could we know how they really think about their host society?

Lastly - the historical record isn't too encouraging. Do we have long-term examples of Muslims integrating into a host society?

[Spartacus]

Interesting thread, and I appreciate the tone and approach you've adopted, Spartacus.

A few things to add to the mix:

Are we interpreting Islam through the correct lens? We tend to look at Islam as a religion in the Western sense - something you basically practice in private, which doesn't necessarily affect your public and political views or behaviour. So two Catholics (say) could hold a range of views on a number of social and political issues, but not see that as any contradiction with their Catholicism.

Is that true to the same (or any) extent of Islam? Do Muslims see themselves as being free to choose their views in these areas? Do they think that they can reject some of Islam's moral standards or teachings and still be Muslim?

I think that the answer to both these questions is by and large, no. Islam is, much more than Western-style religion, a non-compromising moral, ethical and political system. There's submission to Allah, either voluntarily or enforced, and that's it. Anything else is not Islam.

You've begged the question of whether the modern Western understanding of religion is actually appropriate. Before we suggest that Muslims impose it on ourselves, we should reflect on whether we ourselves think it is correct. Religion as a basically private practice is a creature unique to the modern West: at no other time or place in history has this conception of religion been dominant.

And in case that wasn't obscure enough, I'm going to throw John Henry Newman into the mix. I've been wondering about this for a while, but I'm not used to articulating it, so if I'm not sufficiently clear, call me out on it and I'll try to explain better. Sorry for using you as a guinea pig.

Newman, the prominent 19th Century Anglican clergyman who converted to Catholicism and was later made a Cardinal, had a slightly peculiar definition of liberalism as applied to religion-- what he called the "anti-dogmatic principle." Newman saw his life's work as being dedicated to opposing this form of liberalism, and I think it's useful in understanding what we should or should not ask of Islam. He explained at some length what he meant by liberalism in an appendix to his Apologia pro Vita Sua-- I'll post a couple key points, but the whole thing is here.

Note that this is him expressing the tenets of liberalism, not his own beliefs.

1. No religious tenet is important, unless reason shows it to be so.
Therefore, e.g. the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed is not to be insisted on, unless it tends to convert the soul; and the doctrine of the Atonement is to be insisted on, if it does convert the soul.

2. No one can believe what he does not understand.
Therefore, e.g. there are no mysteries in true religion.

3. No theological doctrine is any thing more than an opinion which happens to be held by bodies of men.
Therefore, e.g. no creed, as such, is necessary for salvation.

4. It is dishonest in a man to make an act of faith in what he has not had brought home to him by actual proof.
Therefore, e.g. the mass of men ought not absolutely to believe in the divine authority of the Bible.

Would it be possible or desirable for Islam to liberalize in the sense Newman described, discarding all doctrines that cannot be shown to be important by reason? You may note that this would be contradictory to Islam, but according to Newman, it also goes against true Christianity.

Another issue is the Muslim practice of taqiya - dissembling or lying about their real motives and goals when in danger - "In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly"

This creates legitimate doubt, at least, about just how much a Muslim who has integrated really has integrated - if they believe in taqiya, how could we know how they really think about their host society?

This reminds me of what paranoid Protestants used to say about Jesuits, casuistry, and mental reservation. And even now, there are plenty of Christians who are consequentialists, people who argue, for example, that it's OK to lie to abortion providers in order to get them to say something potentially embarrassing to the abortion industry.

[Starlight]

Well the practice of spying-on Muslim immigrants and trying to spot the "bad ones" seems to have been tried quite a lot and failed every time. A better approach has been for authorities to work with mosques and make the moderate Muslims in the West feel like valued and trusted partners.

But I would support a) a low limit to the number of immigrants from Muslim countries or of Muslim faith, to encourage integration; b) being extremely upfront and frank and explicit about what liberal western values are and how if they make the choice to immigrate here that they are agreeing to adhere to those values and not try to force Islamic ideas on others etc, and I would want them to sign a document to that effect swearing before Allah on it; c) I would actively filter potential immigrants based on their current religious beliefs and interview them on the subject and filter out ones giving non-integrating answers.