Of Ostriches And Islam

By Cernig

My post yesterday on the latest Europol report on terrorism in Europe seems to have aroused some ire over on the Right of blogtopia.

Michael van der Galien, a European conservative, wrote in response to my post:

Cernig makes one major mistake: his reasoning is that as long as Muslims do not commit a lot of terrorist attacks there is no problem. This is - of course - not true. The problem with radical Islam specifically, and Muslim immigrants generally, is not just terrorism, there is much more to it.

He then cites a Telegraph account of a report by the rightwing think tank Policy Exchange as proof of his belief that there is an inherent problem with Islam and that "young British Muslims are getting more and more radical..In fact, they are adopting more fundamentalist beliefs on key social and political issues than their parents or grandparents." Since when haven't young people been inclined to radicalism? They mellow as they grow older.

Not to mention that, for anything about immigration quoted by the Telegraph's Colonel Blimps, it's always good to check they are quoting accurately. Or maybe look at alternative reports.

One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report, Munira Mirza, writing in the Guardian, took the UK media to task for it's spin on the report.

Inevitably, media coverage of the report Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the Paradox of Multiculturalism, which I co-authored, focused on its more alarming poll statistics. The Guardian correctly reported that "support for sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil in public is significantly stronger among young Muslims than their parents" (More young Muslims back sharia, says poll, January 29).
However, the research revealed a broad diversity of opinions and experiences within the most intensely scrutinised group in Britain. One of our aims was to get past the sensationalist portrayal of Muslims as "the problem" - either as terrorists or as victims of Islamophobia.
Most Muslims are well integrated, want to live under British law and prefer to send their children to mixed schools. They do not live in bleak ghettoes cut off from society. Their religion is not a barrier to integration and is very often perfectly reconciled with being - and feeling - British. While some younger Muslims are turning to religion, others have secular habits such as drinking and pre-marital relationships. Although there is some support for sharia, we should be wary of seeing this as automatic qualification for the label "extremist".
The central concern of the report was not Muslims per se, but a particular type of politicised religious identity. British-born Muslims are more likely than their parents to assert their identity in the public sphere, express anti-western feelings, and feel a strong sense of victimisation. Although most Muslims - even devout ones - will not become active Islamists or "fundamentalists" who seek to reform the state along religious lines, this type of thinking is becoming noticeable at the periphery.
The problem is not immigration, which benefits Britain. In fact, Muslims have arrived in large numbers since the 1950s, yet radicalisation is a relatively recent phenomenon. Rather, the weakening of collective political and national identities over the past 20 years has meant that younger people generally are searching for meaning. A similar impulse lies behind the resurgence of Scottishness, and even Englishness.

The report itself makes fascinating reading - all 100 pages - and is far more nuanced than the Telegraph article Michael cites suggested. It's central thesis is that, far from being a "Clash of Civilizations" menace, Islam in the UK is fractured and mostly moderate. So fractured, in fact, that it makes no sense whatsoever to speak about or treat Muslims in the UK as if they are all part of one homogenous group. In response to those who, like Michael, fear that Muslims will want all "women be oppressed, be forced to wear scarves and even burkas," the report itself notes:

Therefore, the majority of Muslims does not want sharia law and is opposed to its implementation in Britain. Among those who would like to live by sharia, more would prefer to see it reinterpreted than not. This is important to stress, because statistics about sharia can wrongly give the impression that Muslims who want to live by it are in favour of the most brutal punishments and strict regulations, which many non-Muslims feel alienated by. At the same time, there is a significant strand of young Muslims who say they wish to live by sharia and who do not wish to see it reformed. What is the appeal of sharia law to these younger Muslims, who have had the benefits of living under a more liberal system? During the interviews, the respondents who favoured sharia law explained it was superior because it expressed stronger moral codes and was harsher on criminals, although there was little appetite to impose it on the wider British population.

As to support for terrorism, only 7% of those surveyed (72 people) said they admired organisations like Al-Qaeda. The report notes:

Despite the shock headlines, it is important to put these statistics into perspective. The vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, and even those who express sympathy will probably not become violent. The 1990 Trust has pointed out that the questions asked in some surveys can be misleading, and that expressing sympathy for the bombers’ motives should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of the action itself. In its own survey of 1213 Muslims, it found a rather small proportion - 1.9% - of Muslims felt it is actually justified to commit terrorist attacks on civilians in the UK101. This does not eliminate concern, but may put things in better perspective. Nor were those who expressed admiration of Al-Qaeda necessarily very religious. Of the 72 people who said they agreed with the statement, (38%) either never prayed or only occasionally. 32% of them do not want to live under sharia law. 52% believe sharia law should be reformed. These are clearly not people who follow Wahabist doctrine.

Clearly, this report is a far different beast than that which the Telegraph - and Michael - would like it to be.

Michael's a nice guy, if gullible on this issue, but he's (unintentionally) setting up a strawman here by suggesting I'm ignoring such issues. It was a blog post, not a book - I'm not going to stray too far into related topics.

But if he wanted he could have searched Newshogger's archives. He would have found treatments of how a reformation of Islam might come about and be encouraged as well as well as posts on how the islamist extremists and Europe's undoubted islamobigots must each shoulder their part of the blame for the state of Muslim opinion and action in Europe today.

Other commenters have essentially focussed on the same strawmen, attacking me for what I didn't say in the post rather than what I did. They could all do with some time in my old logic Prof's classes.

Should I perhaps make it clearer exactly what I was saying in my previous post?

The dangers of Islamist terrorism are real and present, however they are not so prevalent and so overwhelming - as the analysis of incidents shows - as they have been hyped to be, mostly by the Right. That it is hyping is shown by the fact that there have been far more arrests than is justified by the number of convictions. It is also shown by the way in which those who declare themselves simply concerned with the effects of immigration regardless of religious or ethnic background - i.e. not bigots - aren't making any noise at all about the alleged threat to normal life posed by other immigrants - from Eastern European nations, for instance. In the UK, for instance, 40 or so gangs from Bulgaria in particular are currently engaged in a violent takeover of the UK's crime. That, according to one Home Office source, is the current "biggest thing" disrupting civil society. Yet nary a word from those concerned about immigration. Could it be because these criminals are at least ostensibly Christian and...well...white?

When a minority is unfairly or overly targeted for arrests based on a hyped up perception of the threat presented by a minority of that minority, you call it bigotry - for that is what it is.

Thankfully, not everyone in Europe is so inclined. I'm pleased to note a European initiative has brought Jewish and Islamic groups together "to create a dialogue over global concerns, opposition to racism, and their common future in a diverse Europe."


Postscript - Michael, to accuse me of ad hominem attacks by using the word "Islamophobe" to describe Mark Steyn and then turn around and use an ad hominem attack by comparing me to the "useful idiots" who "talked about the Soviet Union and Stalin back in the day - you know “Communists aren’t a real threat, the business owners are the real threat,” that kind of thing." is either the gravest error of consistency or rank hypocrisy.