Why Europe (And America) Still Doesn't Get Islam

I'm in the middle of a book by Ralph Peters: The War After Armageddon . It's an interesting fictional look at how a future all-out war between Christians and Muslims might unfold. The characters are well-developed, the action sequences are realistic, and the underlying premise is thought-provoking. If you like this type of novel I highly recommend it.

But that's beside the point. What caught my eye in the novel was this statement:

"After fourteen centuries of warfare between (Christianity) and Islam ... haven't we had sufficient proof that we can't co-exist?"

I happened to read that passage shortly after I read a column by Daniel Greenfield (from a suggestion by BMEWS).

Like an old car starting up on a cold winter's day, European governments have been slowly waking up to the realization that all those jolly Islamic people might be a problem after all. Unfortunately they don't understand the dimensions of the problem. To them the riots, the bombings and the murders are only part of a culture clash, with challenges no different than any other minority group. That is why they prefer to focus on schools and burqas, while ignoring the violence. The thinking is that this is still a cultural problem that can be corrected with 3 drops of educational indoctrination, and 6 drops of enforced integration for the natives whose discriminatory attitudes are just making things worse. The problem is that their model is wrong.

The Islamic problem is not merely a clash of cultures, but also a clash of civilizations. Had it been merely a clash of cultures, Europe would only be in the same boat as America. Troubled, but not immediately fatal. Instead Europe is facing a clash of civilizations. The cultural and religious dimensions of the conflict underlie a larger perception on the Muslim side, that they are fighting to expand the borders of the Muslim East, rather than trying to be accepted in the Christian West.

Here comes the money shot.

The problem is that Muslims believe that their way of life is morally superior, and that any system or institution that does not follow those laws, is invalid. Furthermore they believe that they have a duty to impose their laws on others in the name of their religion or honor.

That's the problem in a nutshell. I have no problem tolerating other people with different opinions or beliefs, as long as they don't interfere with me or mine.

Want to pray five times a day? No problem, as long as your wailing screechy call to worship doesn't drown out my Willie Nelson.

Want to fast during Ramadan? No problem, as long as you don't close What-A-Burger.

Don't want to drink alcohol or caffeine? No problem, as long as you don't keep me from my morning eye-opener or my evening nightcap.

Don't want to eat pork? No problem, but don't get between me and my bacon.

Unfortunately, Islamists don't see it that way. And therein lies the problem.

Most minorities will adapt to a host country, one way or another. However a minority that expects to be a majority, that sees itself as the vanguard of a moral, religious and national force reclaiming territory in the hands of immoral infidels for Allah-- is not going to adapt. Instead it will expect the natives to adapt to it. 

That brings us back to those fourteen centuries of conflict between them and us. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. 

Please go read Greenfield's column. He explains this in much more depth. And then go read Peter's book. At first you'll think "No way this could happen," but once you start to really think about it you'll begin to feel just a touch unsettled...