Andrea Brandt and Cordula Meyer of the German magazine Der Spiegel report on the development of a Muslim parallel society in Germany.
Germany's Muslim population is becoming more religious and more conservative. Islamic associations are fostering the trend, particularly through their work with the young -- accelerating the drift towards a parallel Muslim society.
The article explains how German judges are instrumental in allowing Muslims to separate themselves in schools and other venues. My take: If separate parallel societies within borders are acceptable in this supposed universal world of liberal secular market capitalism and globalism why not put the separate societies on different sides of borders? Why do we need to construct separate parallel societies at close quarters in neighborhoods? How does this benefit us? It seems to only cost us and inflict strife, hostility, and conflicts right where we live.
Surveys in the country have charted a significant increase in fundamentalist attitudes, particularly among younger Muslims. The experiences of Ekin Deligöz, a member of the German parliament representing the Green Party, underscore the potential dangers. Having called on Muslim women to remove their headscarves, Deligöz faced death threats and now receives police protection.
This is a long article with lots of descriptions of Islamic residential homes for adolescents where the kids are basically taught to separate themselves from non-Islamic society. Click through and read the whole thing if you have any doubts about the scope of the problem.
The Muslims in Germany are becoming more Islamic and more separate from German society.
According to Faruk Süen, director of the Center for Turkish Studies, the boys and girls are increasingly defining themselves by reference to their faith. In his view, this is another consequence of 9/11. After the terror attacks, Islam was stigmatized by the world at large, he explains, sparking a counterreaction among Muslims. In 2000 Süen's center conducted a survey. The results showed that 8 percent of immigrants of Turkish extraction said they were "very religious." In 2005, the figure had climbed to 28 percent.
The survey's findings on headscarves are also striking. While only 27 percent had thought Muslim women should cover their hair in 2000, the number had almost doubled to 47 percent five years later. A similar pattern emerged on the topics of dual-sex sports classes and participation in coeducational school trips. Rejected by 19 percent in 2000, by last year the proportion had risen to 30 percent.
Women and young men are startlingly conservative: 59 percent of 18- to 30-year olds favored Muslim women wearing headscarves, as did almost 62 percent of female respondents. Members of mosque associations took particularly orthodox positions, including - and above all - the VIKZ members.
Why force your kids into environments where they are not tolerated? Why allow your society to change into a hostile alien one by letting in incompatible immigrants? Why force Western Christians into the same hostile conditions seen in Muslim countries? I realize that George W. Bush calls Islam a religion of peace. But why not challenge this ridiculous lie?
A teacher at Richard Elementary in the same district gave disturbing evidence last year to the school committee: German children "weren't really being tolerated," and "Christian" was often used as a term of contempt. The teachers were doing their best to set things straight during class "but, sadly, with very little success," she said.
This sort of report always remind me of Monty Python's Argument skit and the "Being Hit On The Head lessons". Yes, it is a stupid concept. But it is a concept which the West's elites have taught its masses they have to accept.
What should we do about Islam? Keep the Muslims out of the West. Lawrence Auster calls this strategy separationism. Mr. Auster brings to my attention an Investors Business Daily editorial calling for the separation of Islam from the West.
Global Jihad: A new Gallup poll finds that richer, better-educated Muslims are more likely to be radicalized. This explodes the myth of the poor, dumb terrorist.
Since 9/11, the politically correct elite have mau-maued Americans into thinking the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion out of ignorance and poverty. Or that they've been brainwashed by Osama bin Laden.
But Gallup found the opposite to hold true: The most radical among Muslims — those who support jihad — earn more and stay in school longer. These are the smart ones, not the rubes.
As the IBD editors point out, the behavior of Muslims contradicts liberal dogma on education. Modern liberal dogma holds education as universal cure for most of what ails society. We are constantly told by high church liberals that if only we spent more on education and improved our ability to educate then everything from crime to racial differences in achievement to terrorism would go down.
In an amazing conclusion the IBD editors become perhaps the first editors of a major American newspaper to advocate the separation of Islam from the West.
Gallup's survey of Muslims, the largest conducted, puts to rest theories that radicals attack us because they're poor and alienated from society. Or because they're dim and easily misled.
Radical Muslims have an education and an economic future, yet they still hate. They're literate enough to interpret their holy books, yet they still embrace jihad against infidels.
Perhaps the only sane course in this war is to separate the West from Islam.
As Lawrence Auster points out, IBD's editors are unusual in the press because they follow the evidence to a logical conclusion.
Now, IBD’s editors are not the first people to note the connection between modernization and jihad. Intellectuals such Olivier Roy and Francis Fukuyama have said the same. But those intellectuals never follow through to the logical conclusions of this factual observation. Instead they suggest bandaids, such as easing the radicalization of Western Muslims via greater efforts at assimilation. IBD—and this is what is amazing—does follow through to the logical conclusion. If education and wealth, and thus by implication modernization, spur jihadism, then every additional contact of the West with Islam, whether through the export of our culture, technology, and political ideas to the Islamic world, or the import of Muslims to the West, leads to greater jihadism.
To dismiss the evidence one has to make an argument along the lines that moderate doses of Western exposure cause Jihadism but that if only we could make the doses of Western culture big enough then the Muslims would turn away from hostility toward non-Muslims.
Is this argument right? Sure, but only if we used methods that are anathema to liberals. What would work? If we took their babies away and raised the babies in Christian homes then the kids would grow up non-Muslim and hence wouldn't have the Muslim hostility to the West. We can hope that if the kids get to watch MTV that'd turn them away from Islam. But when we look at Muslims in Western countries such as Britain and Germany we can plainly see that the daily exposure of the larger societies is not enough to turn Muslims away from their hostility and their own construction of parallel cultures.
I criticize the war in Iraq because it does not protect us at home. We should stop Muslim immigration and pay Muslims to leave. For the cost of the Iraq war we could have greatly reduced our risk of Muslim terrorism by putting well defended national borders and thousands and miles between us and them.
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2007 February 24 11:28 AM Immigration Culture Clash|