A new Danish statistical study finds that “Muslims [are] 218 percent more criminal in second generation than first.” While some of these crimes are clearly related to Islam—such as attacks on Muslim apostates to Christianity—others, such as rampant theft of non-Muslims, would appear banal, until one realizes that even robbery and plunder is justified by Islamic doctrine—as one UK Muslim cleric once clearly said.
The interesting question here is why are second generation Muslims, who are presumably more Westernized than their Muslim parents, also more “radical”? Lest one dismiss this phenomenon as a product of economics or some other “grievance” against European host nations, the fact is, even in America, where Muslims are much better assimilated than in Europe, they too are turning to “radicalism.”
For example, some time back, Attorney General Eric Holder said that “the threat [of terrorism] has changed … to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens—raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born.”
Around the same time, Sue Myrick, then a member of Congress, wrote a particularly candid letter on “radicalization” to President Obama:
For many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalization was not happening inside the United Sates. We believed American Muslims were immune to radicalization because, unlike the European counterparts, they are socially and economically well-integrated into society. There had been warnings that these assumptions were false but we paid them no mind. Today there is no doubt that radicalization is taking place inside America. The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact self-evident.
Myrick named several American Muslims as examples of those who, while “embodying the American dream, at least socio-economically,” were still “radicalized,” astutely adding, “The truth is that if grievances were the sole cause of terrorism, we would see daily acts by Americans who have lost their jobs and homes in this economic downturn.”
Quite so. Yet, though Myrick’s observations were limited to the domestic scene, they beg the following, more cosmic, question: If American Muslims, who enjoy Western benefits—including democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression—are still being radicalized, why then do we insist that the importation of these same Western benefits to the Muslim world will eliminate its even more indigenous or authentic form of “radicalization”?
After all, the mainstream position evoked by most politicians maintains that all U.S. sacrifices in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) will pay off once Muslims discover how wonderful Western ways are, and happily slough off their “Islamist” veneer, which, as the theory goes, is a product of—you guessed it—a lack of democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression.
Yet here are American and European Muslims, immersed in the bounties of the West, and still do they turn to violent jihad. Why think their counterparts, who are born and raised in the Muslim world, where Islam permeates every aspect of life, will respond differently?
In fact, far from eliminating “radicalization,” Western values can actually exacerbate Islamic tendencies—hence why second generation, “Westernized” Muslims are also becoming more “radicalized” than their parents.
Some already known that Western concessions to Islam—in the guise of multiculturalism, “cultural sensitivity,” political correctness, and self-censorship—only bring out the worst of Islam’s “schoolyard bully.” Yet even some of the most prized aspects of Western civilization—personal freedom, rule of law, human dignity—when articulated through an Islamic framework, have the capacity to “radicalize” Muslims.
Consider: the West’s commitment to the law as supreme arbitrator, for the Westernized Muslim becomes a commitment to establish and enforce Islamic law, Sharia; the West’s commitment to democracy, for the Westernized Muslim becomes a commitment to theocracy, including an anxious impulse to resurrect the caliphate; Western notions of human dignity and pride, when articulated through an Islamic paradigm (which sees only fellow Muslims as equals) induces rage when Muslims—Palestinians, Afghanis, Iraqis, etc.—are seen under Western, infidel dominion; Western notions of autonomy and personal freedom have even helped “Westernize” the notion of jihad into an individual duty, though it has traditionally been held by Sharia as a communal duty.
In short, a set of noble principles articulated through a foreign paradigm can lead to abominations. In this case, the better principles of Western civilization are being devoured, absorbed, and regurgitated into something equally potent, though from the other end of the spectrum.
Put differently, just as a stress on human freedom, human dignity, and universal justice produces good humans, rearticulating these same concepts through an Islamic framework that qualifies them with the word “Muslim”—Muslim freedom, Muslim dignity, and Muslim justice—leads to what is being called “radicalization.”
Most excellent exposition, Raymond. You summed up the Muslim problematic ideology perfectly. We must keep our powder dry for the continuing “radicalization.”
Show me a cross-section of the so-called “westernized second-generation” muslims and I will show you MUSLIMS who are predominately males between 18 – 30 years of age. These are the ones who by and large are being “radicalized”! And just why is that?
Here’s the long and short of it–no pun intended. It’s all about what’s in (or not in) their pants!
Let’s pretend you are one of these muslim youths. Your parents are muslims from somewhere in the Middle East or from Africa. You are required to attend the local mosque where your imam holds “special” training classes on the “special rewards” for all “good” muslims. He elaborates about the “72 virgins” and reminds everyone in the class that “such can only be guaranteed to you if you commit an act of jihad in the name of allah”! What’s more, according to the “prophet” himself, “those who commit violent jihad by killing an ‘infidel’ causing their own suicide”, will not only achieve their reward of “72 for all eternity” but will automatically have their choice of any sexual fantasy (male or female) that their vile imaginations can conceive, and wonder of wonders, ALL OF YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN, VOILA! Think it’s not working? Think I’m out in left field? Better think again!!!
THAT’S WHY WE NEED TO MONITOR (IF NOT CLOSE DOWN) EVERY MOSQUE EVERYWHERE! THEY ARE ALL TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS!!! NO JOKE!!!
agree with you on this.
Wow…….you have connected the dots for me. I forget sex is the great motivator. It just seemed too shallow a motive but of course you’re right. Great insight…..thanks…….
If you are not allowed to have one in this life , 72 goats in the next is a fair deal . Yup . Given that muslim men have no respect for women , needing them only for the generation of more muslims , their lives have got to be somewhat hollow . Which leaves plenty of room for demons .
Validate your 2nd Amendment Rights . Carry !
This idea of Muslim ‘radicalization’ youth or otherwise ignores the fact so called ‘radicalization’ is not a reaction to Western culture but derived directly from the Islamic textual and exemplar (messianic) templates already in place within Islamic codex.
It also ignore the fact invariably the ‘true’ nature of a culture being made manifest is dependent upon actual of percentage of adherents of any ideology(to enable effective enforcement feedback mechanisms relative to the nature of the codex construct of Other) and integral the existence or otherwise of external ethical blockers to the full development of the underlying cultural behavioral variance informed by these cultural codex templates.
One simply has to reflect on historical and current nation states and the development in time and space of the influence of Islam on the politic or even on a secular version such a the Nazi in Germany to understand how this works. Any number of very personable so called moderates beginning, during and after makes absolutely no difference to the final outcome.
Also the worst aspect of accepting this notion of ‘radicalization’ is that it seeks to establish a distinct Islamic/Muslim extremist ideology which if true would require NO cultural codex connection textual or exemplar to a distinct Islamic/Muslim moderate ideology.
It is a very dangerous notion ‘radicalization’ for it proposes it is possible to isolate and therefore eradicate Islamic/Muslim extremism particularly if it is determined as simply reactionary to Western values rather than integral to Islam itself. It is the same as victim blaming and shifting of actual responsibility of terror from Muslims to Other.
Given both sides Islamic/Muslim extremists and so called moderates derive their behavioral variance from the exact same textual codex source the Quran and the exemplar (messianic) template Mohammad is the same – you will never, never be able in time and space to have only so called non-radicalized Muslim moderate without the Muslim extremists and terrorists.
The word “radicalization” is a complete misnomer, invented by Western multiculturalists to try to explain the phenomenon of muslims becoming more “extreme”. The rationale is this: the change must be caused by OUTSIDE INFLUENCES/FACTORS, including the ones outlined here, such as poverty etc.
Unfortunately, this theory falls flat on its face, not only because so many of these “radicalized” muslims often come from middle-class backgrounds, but because of what MUSLIMS THEMSELVES TELL US. For example, a few years ago, former “radicalized” muslim, Hassan Butt, explained in the Guardian:
“When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how WE USED TO LAUGH IN CELEBRATION whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was WESTERN FOREIGN POLICY”.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the ‘Blair’s bombs’ line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: ISLAMIC THEOLOGY”.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jul/01/comment.religion1
So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. So-called “radicalization” can be easily explained within the framework of Islamic theology, and without any reference to outside factors: IT IS WHEN A MUSLIM MAKES THE SWITCH FROM MECCA ISLAM TO MEDINA ISLAM. So Westerners should stop scratching their heads, wondering what we have done wrong. At some point it would have happened anyway because the “switch” happened in a muslim’s mind. It can happen to any muslim at any time, but becomes more frequent if the “ummah” think they are “winning” (even if they’re not). The “switch” in mindset is exactly what happened to Mohammad Sidique Khan and the other London Bombers. What “radicalized” them? They simply read the Quran a different way, that’s all.
It is simply ignorance on the part of Westerners who do not understand that Islam allows for “offensive jihad” as well as “defensive jihad”. Once Western leaders understand this, and some already do, then we will able to dismiss talk of “radicalization”, because we will be able to provide the rationale based on Islam’s DUAL MORALITY: Mecca and Medina.
I agree completely it comes under the cultural relativist paradigm if a culture is causing trouble in a community they should be allowed more freedom, even establishment of their own schools and judiciary which enables even more terror and major schism.
The cultural relativists then claim it is caused by Others over reaction not by the culture itself and they determine Other as suffering from a mental illness – phobia – no wonder the Muslims are angry.
Pure insanity passes for rational public policy.
is it radicalisation or just devout behaviour in accord with the teachings of the Qur’an
With all these terms being around these days “extremist” , “fundamentalist”, “saflafist”, “radicalist” etc. it’s hard to even draw the line between these concepts. I doubt there is much difference in them though. In the end, the outcome will be the same…..a not so good one