What we see is a demographic timebomb of Muslim youths who have been marginalized and ghettoized by the host nations.
This hypothesis doesn’t jibe with the finding that jihadists tend to be better educated and wealthier than the typical Muslim. Why is it so difficult for people to accept that Islam is the root cause of these people’s ideology? Is it really so difficult to believe that out of the thousands and thousands of religions in the world, a few of them have at their core a doctrine of violence toward non-believers? It defies logic and human nature to suggest that it is impossible that Islam itself is the cause of terrorist activities among Muslims. Especially when Islam is a totalitarian doctrine that informs all of a Muslim’s actions. If Europe were rolling out a red carpet to Muslims, they’d still pursue dominance over non-believers.
American Muslims have been quiescent through the currenct turmoil because America offers all immigrants genuine opportunity. Vested interest based on genuine achievement negates alienation and removes the reason to lash out.
You remember this poll: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/poll_a_quarter_.html
The idea that America somehow has a unique exemption from the Islamic doctrine that Muslims must be the dominant political power in any state in which they reside is hubris. I love America more than the average American (I should, I’ve had the best education possible and have had every success I’ve ever wanted in the job market) and I don’t think that we will escape the Muslim Menace at the rate we’re going.
vortex,
Again: no one is refusing to acknowledge the problem. Bruce and the rest of you are, however, failing to acknowledge at least one gross exaggeration in the article, namely the bit about Amsterdam’s population being “nearly half Muslim.”
OK, so just fast forward a few years to the point in time when half of Amsterdam’s population is EXACTLY 50% of the total city population. Do you anticipate that Bawer’s point will not be valid at that time? Why you are harping on a relatively minor point in the article is beyond me and doesn’t invalidate any of the conclusions being drawn about how, to paraphrase Hugh Fitzgerald’s phrase, the presence of Muslims in the West makes life more physically dangerous for the natives. The “tipping point” appears to be lower than 50%, anyway, so insisting that 50% is some kind of magical number is missing the point.
Gay-bashings happen in the U.S. all the time; yet for some reason the religion of the bashers is not usually considered relevant.
That’s because for most Westerners, religion doesn’t play the same role in informing day-to-day actions as it does for Muslims. Islam, doctrinally, claims the authority to dictate ALL of a Muslim’s actions and Muslims are obligated by this claim. Thus, the relevance of the religion of Muslim gay-bashers is justified by the claims of Islam itself, which is more of a legalistic system of governance than a religion.
Likewise with the so-called “French intifada.” Many of the participants, being from sub-Saharan Africa, aren’t Muslim. Yet the car-burnings are invariably couched (at least by those with the most to gain by fomenting hatred of Muslims) in religious rather than socio-political terms.
Link, please. This is a bold claim and needs to be backed up. Given the media’s tendency to downplay Islam as the root cause of these maniacal rampages, I doubt that if this were true, it wouldn’t have been broadcast far and wide.
And just for the record, I have nothing “to gain” from pointing out that Islam tout court is incompatible with my understanding of Western civilization and Western mores. But, point it out I must because I, for one, LOVE Western civilization and Western mores and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let ANYONE get in the way of me living my life in accordance with them. As I’ve said before, I’d kill my own mother if she were somehow abetting Islam’s attempt at establishing itself as the predominant power in Western lands. (If you’re reading this, sorry Mom!)
