An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Extremism Question – Why Do Muslims Become Radicalized?
I was not convinced by Michael van der Galien’s recent analysis of the radicalization of British Muslims. Citing an article in The Telegraph, Michael writes that British Muslims are becoming increasingly fundamentalist and that their support for terrorism is on the rise. How does he explain this phenomenon? Michael argues that it is “multiculturalism” that has encouraged this radicalization. The British policy of tolerance towards people of different cultures, he suggests, is so backwards that it has led to the increasingly radical views of the British Muslim population.
But is this really so? Is it a policy of acceptance that has led to a more radicalized Muslim community in Britain?
I doubt it. Read my response to Galien’s post here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
23 Responses to “The Extremism Question – Why Do Muslims Become Radicalized?”
LOL It’s not nice to question the Dutch lad. I would be worried about a JavaScript attack if I were you.
Your post relies entirely on unsupported assertions by various “experts” like Christiane Amanpour of CNN. Hardly evidence.
In particular, your assertion that “this phenomenon of radicalization has occurred overwhelmingly since 9/11″ is just wrong. The 9/11 hijackers themselves were radicals. There have been suicide bombers since the late 70s, and Arab terrorists long before that. Osama Bin Laden had no trouble recruiting jihadists before 9/11.
The Dutch have nothing to do with the war in Iraq, yet there is a sizable population of anti-Western Islamic radicals there, who kill filmmakers in the street because they don’t like movies critical of Islam.
Radical Muslims always have an excuse for their violence, convenient scapegoats on which to blame th eWest. First it was Israel. Then it was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia (which went there at the request of Saudi Arabia to protect against invasion from another Arab Muslim country which had just invaded, looted, and butchered another sovereign Arab Muslim country. Now it’s the Iraq war. Our foreign policy is not the problem.
Before, Islamic countries could shut out the West to a large degree. These last 100 years has seen alot of that disappear. With the worlds need for oil bringing us in contact with the region, to TV and the internet allowing their culture to be exposed to ours. Middle Eastern culture is defined by Islam, which also rules their governments. It can’t take exposure to our ideals, which run afoul of the traditions of Islam in many ways.
You could say its just our domineering policies, and certainly that is part of where the hatred comes from. But it thrives even in countries like Saudi Arabi that the US has long and extensive ties with. Purely business and mutual interest it may be, but the fact remains its hard to say we’ve “Dominated” Saudi Arabi any more than we’ve done so with Canada. Yet extremism flourishes there.
In particular, your assertion that “this phenomenon of radicalization has occurred overwhelmingly since 9/11″ is just wrong. The 9/11 hijackers themselves were radicals. There have been suicide bombers since the late 70s, and Arab terrorists long before that. Osama Bin Laden had no trouble recruiting jihadists before 9/11.
Of course there have been radicals for a long time, but he is referring to the rise in fundamentalist sentiment among Muslims living in Europe which has, in fact, gone up alot of since 9/11. Just because there have always been terrorists and extremists doesn’t mean that those sentiments haven’t increased in recent years.
But it is significant that the origin of the Islamist terrorist movement predated the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. As has been pointed out in another comment, globalization itself is the threat to the extremist leaders. They don’t believe that their version of radical Islam is compatible with modern life or with democracy. Certainly the leaders of this movement then use Western foreign policy, particularly support of Israel and the military interventions, as a rallying point among marginalized Muslims (in Muslim countries as well as the European immigrants) but the citation of this as the cause is an excuse, not a reason, for radicalization.
Radicalization — however one chooses to assign weight to marginalization, restricted opportunity, or multiculturalism — takes root most easily in the young… and more specifically, in young men.
And the Middle East, for some time, has been growing very lopsided, demographically, with the majority of the population males under age 26. This was seen as an oncoming freight train long in advance of the current crises or even 9/11.
I don’t know whether the demographic issue translates to the British Muslim population, but young people are notoriously ripe for agitation. I’d be inclined to put at least some weight on shared youth angst.
Let’s bump up the argument a notch of two:
Why is it that young British Muslims are becoming radicalized at a worrisome rate while young American Muslims are not?
While this comparison is fraught with variables, I would suggest that the answer has to do with the opportunities available to young Muslims in the UK vs. the U.S. That is to say, fewer in the U.K. than the U.S.
Any takers?
I think that’s part of it, Shaun, but I also think that the demographics of the immigrants in Europe are much different than the US ones. I’d have to search for references but I know I’ve seen stats to back this up: US Muslims are generally highly educated and coming here for opportunities in science, medicine, etc. European Muslims (a generalization of course) are from poor, rural areas and tend to be followers of fundamentalist sects. I think the Islamic imams who are looking to instigate are well aware of that and take advantage.
I caught some serious disagreement in my comments to Michael’s first post. Perhaps we got a little too lost in the particular’s of the discussion so thanks Jeb for bringing us back to the big picture.
So, why do I think young Muslims are becoming radicallized? Well obviously there are many answers. The answer I think MvdG likes to focus on is that as CS puts it “globalization itself is the threat to the extremist leaders. They don’t believe that their version of radical Islam is compatible with modern life or with democracy.” These leaders then push their listeners towards extremes. I don’t dispute this at all. None of us have any sort of direct say in these disturbing trends. We can discuss when and where they started, but I fail to see how such a discussion helps the problem at hand.
However, I do think that along with that external current, the west provides an environment where that type of plan or movement is allowed to succeed. I think that MvdG, and perhaps CS are a bit simplistic when they blame this on “multiculturalism” as it is some sort of binary switch, your either multicultural or you aren’t. I think the problem is that we have the wrong type of multiculturalism.
Under the current system, we allow many people to immegrate, and we generally assume that they will assimilate into our culture quietly. This worked just fine in a non-global world, where the immegrants shared very similar values to us, such as European and even Asian immegratns to the US. In such non-global situations, people were essentially forced to integrate. There were few major newspapers which everyone had to read, they all had to listen to the same radio or watch the same tv shows. This simple cultural environment lead to a gradual almost unavoidable integration.
Now, our global world has changed the rules, and we would be ill advised not to respond. Now immegrants have a choice, they can move to a country, and function within the economic system and government of that country, but at the same time basically stay culturally independant through satalite TV, the internet and fast/cheap international travel. All of these new realities unfornately help circumvent the old ‘inevitability’ of passive integration. This, coupled with the natural human desire to resist change, has created these cultural islands which have allowed infiltration by non-democratic ideas.
Therefore, what is needed in this modern age is active cultural integration. This does not mean we need to sacrifice our views on democracy or female circumcision, but it does mean that we, the ‘natives’ must not refuse to participate in the integration simply because ‘we got here first’. We must actively search for new lines of communication with these emerging populations in order that we might present to them alternatives to the infectious idealogy of hate and extermeism.
There is also a great danger in trying to simply remove the problem by removing the immegrants. If we simply limit the influx of new people, and deport the ones who do not agree, we are putting our finger in the dyke of history. Globalization continues to happen with or without our seal of approval. A culturally isolated nation has no power to shape cultural events across the world. Even if we manage to keep the garbage of hatred out of our own back yard, one day someone will have to clean it up. By removing these immegrants we would be removing potential allies in our struggle who could present western ideas of freedom and liberty to the world with the face of a friend or realtive rather than a stranger.
Multiculturism is a bain for any nation. ANY.
Anyone doubting this needs to go hang out in Texas for a few weeks. There are stores in Texas now taking Mexican Pesos. I lived in Texas 22 years. I had to leave because I felt as if the state trully was becoming another nation before my eyes.
The anger, animosity and disputes in schools was beyond belief. Gangs are forming Whites, Blacks, Mexicans. Multiculturalism is alive and flourishing in Texas and it is a horror story to watch IMO.
I believe this is A part of why Muslims in Britian act up. I think you both have valid points. I think you are both about 1/2 right and together you are 100 percent right.
The more i thought about it Upinsmoke, the more bizare that became. That means that there is actually an INFLUX of Mexican money into the US. That is actually a very good thing considering the alternative of US dollars leaving the country and heading to Mexico. This might signal that mexico is becoming a more equal economic partner rather than a supplier of natural resources.
I’m sure many of our eruopean friends ran into have similar stories about shops accepting multiple currencies before the euro. Maybe this is the first signs of the development of a ‘North American Dollar’! I would be kind of excited about that prospect, but I have the sense you might not.
Just to clarify. Why do you think accepting Pesos is bad for America?
“..what is needed in this modern age is active cultural integration. ”
Kevin H’s analysis is very sound, but I would add the adjective ‘firm’ to dross-cultural outreach. Too often, respect and tolerance in the west morphs into bending our norms into obliviona in order to accomodate newcomers. Salman Rushdie said that the worst reaction to the cartoon broohaha was to apologize for printing them. We have to be firm, not confrontational but firm, in drawing a line in the sand about what values can not be sacriiced for their comfort.
In response to the ex-Texan, I also think that the Latino communities’ adherence to Spanish can be a problem. If there is no incentive to learn English, language bacomes another wall to divide ‘us’ and ‘them’. We are already so divided politically, in religious views and social norms, that we should do everything to break some of the barriers down. Particularly in schools, there is a tendency to refashion schools to accomodate Latino immigrants rather than using the school years to integrate the children into mainstream society.
Differences are enriching, but if they pass from being variants in a unified society to being separate subsets, the whole can split into its many parts.
European Muslims (a generalization of course) are from poor, rural areas and tend to be followers of fundamentalist sects.
While I can see why this might be a logical assumption, it’s not necessarily true. As a general rule, many radical, political Islamists are actually highly educated, most with university degrees in the maths and sciences. That’s definitely the case for most political Islamists in the Middle East; I haven’t seen any demographics for Europe (I’m not sure they exist yet) but I would be interested to see if this is the case.
Also, and this is just nitpicking, the bulk of radical political Islamists don’t belong to fundamentalist sects. Most are simply Shia or Sunni who subscribe to a fundamentalist ideology of political Islam.
I think it’s important to make this distinction though. The radicalization of Muslims today is just a continuation of the growth of political Islam since the Arabs defeat in June 1967. Their numbers and radicalization have only increased since then.
And like most things, I don’t think there is a ‘simple’ answer to this question. Like most things, it’s a combination of a number of factors.
Jeb, I try to keep an open mind and I’m amenable to persuasion. Your post hasn’t persuaded me. Citing some actual authorities or statistics would be helpful.
I certainly think that our policies, including support for Israel, are probably contributory but, since radicalism in the Middle East predates both our invasion and our support for Israel, it’s hard for me to consider them, even taken together, as causal.
Shaun, above, has provided one good explanation. May I suggest another? Is it possible that Salafist imams in the West, financed by the oil money available in substantially greater quantity since the 1970′s, may also be a contributory factor?
domajot, I didn’t specify it in this comment, but In the other thread my suggestion was for the ‘natives’ to be taught the languages of the people who are coming in. This does not involve “bending our norms” one inch, but I think does provide for lines of communication between people of different cultures. It allows us to interact and hopefully befriend each other more easily. It helps both sides take down the language wall between ‘us’ and ‘them’. This in no way means we need to adopt all incoming languages as official languages, but rather just ensure the lines of communication are open.
Why do they become radicalized? Because politics and religon are the same to them. When you believe your politcal position stems from the almighty, there is no room for compromise. The muslim communities in western nations still reflect this to a large degree. Hence 1st generation immigrant protestors at a political rally in a western city with a sign that reads “Massacre all who oppose Islam”.
Kevin H,
I agree that we should be learning more foreign languages. American ignorance about other cultures is shameful, and it’s a detriment to good judgment. However, schools are a special case. They are the primary venue to break down barriers of all kinds, and we should be clear about what the culture is that immigrants will be integrating into. To make schools into little homes away from home defeats the purpose.
I am an ex-immigrant child myself. I benefitied from the lack of accomodation to my English shortcomings. I simply had to learn. Such austere circumstances may be counterproductive to some, and I have no problem with special bi-lingual classes or other means to make the transition easier. But too many times, the transtion never happens, because schools make it possible to get along
without mastering English to any acceptable degree. Integration aside, this is not good for the children’s future.
Speaking of schools, I’m wondering what role they could play in counteracting the lure of radicalism in those volatile teen years. Sports or other after-school programs, perhaps, to encourage cross-cultural interaction? There’s nothing like a personal friendship to break down cultural barriers.
What about religion history classes about all 3 major religions?
I’m probably naive, but I say, try anything and everything. Passsivity will not do the trick!
There are a lot of good comments here. The main line of criticism to my argument seems to be along the lines of what Dave Schuler said: “radicalism…predates both our invasion and our support for Israel.” Schuler, Stanley and others, suggest that it’s not foreign policy decisions that make Muslims radical, but some other factor.
This criticism, in my opinion, is off base. Of course there is, and will always be, radical, anti-western Muslims irregardless of any foreign policy decisions made by the US or Britain. But our policies in the Middle East can either encourage or discourage moderate Muslims from adopting more extremist views.
It’s incorrect to say, in my opinion, that making different foreign policy decisions will not affect the increasing radicalization of European Muslims. The daily images of carnage in Iraq, southern Lebanon, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian territories have changed the way many Muslims see the West. Once-moderate European Muslims are beginning to feel that the West is waging a campaign against Islam and that European leaders are insensitive to Arab lives. Many Muslims who once considered themselves British or French or German are starting to reconsider these labels in the face of their governments’ backing of the daily violence that is occurring in some Arab lands.
The war in Iraq and the US support for Israel (particularly during last summer’s war in Lebanon) has radicalized many Muslims, making them sympathetic to anti-western sentiments. While Schuler is right that this is not the only factor to explain this phenomenon, it is probably the most significant one.
Jeb, you continue to offer no evidence to support your position. It’s one hypothesis, but you don’t offer any numbers, any somewhat objective measure to even establish that radicalization is, in fact, increasing among Muslims living in the West. You don’t address the example of the Dutch. And you almost seem to excuse the people who are becoming radicalized by suggesting that it’s only natural for them to turn against their new home country because we went to war against Saddam Hussein and against the Taliban in Afghanistan. If it’s only natural for them to do so, then that means that they have not, in fact integrated themselves into their new country, and that their fundamental identity was their home area even before the wars started. In 1941, would it have been only natural for Japanese-Americans to turn against the U.S.? Experience shows that in fact very few did. The assumptions that the U.S. government had to the same effect as the reasons you give for Muslim immigrants to become radicalized is what led to the terrible mass internments of Japanese-Americans at that time.
The Dutch have nothing to do with the war in Iraq,
Pat before you ask others for facts you better check this statement.
We do have something to do with Iraq but that’s not the main factor either.
Remember how Moroccon youths were celebrating 9/11 in the Netherlands?
The fact that they’re so open to it, is a clear sign that something before it went wrong. What made them vulnerable? Allowing them to have their own communities, keep their own culture, etc.
MvdG, you keep using words like “allowing” and “forcing”. You really need to take a step back and determine if you want your democraic ideals of freedom and liberty to be destroyed in the name of Dutch Culture.
What is this about Iraq and radicalism? No one can say that the Iraq war caused radicalism, but it is also plain (check the Internet) that it is the jihad recruiter’s dream poster.
Muslim radicalism is no different than the myriad other cults that have come and gone, except that it is on a much larger scale and, therefore, much more dangerous.
It is my guess that a cetain percentage of radicals can never be salvaged; their hearts and minds are totally closed to contrary notions. What we should concentrate on are the waverers, those not beyond reason. To win them over, it is imperative that we practice what we preach; fair treatment under the law, fair treatment in the marketplace, fair access to education.
I was delighted that a Muslim was elected to Congress. We need more poster Muslims like that, prominent Muslims speaking from the demacracy side of the podium.