Pages

Monday, April 14, 2008

Europe, Eurabia, Or A "Creative Synthesis Of The Two"




Two opinions; Barack Obama vs. Daniel Pipes.

1) Daniel Pipes discusses Europe's choices with regarding to Islam:





(Eurabia) is not inevitable. Indigenous Europeans could resist it and, as they make up 95per cent of the continent's population, they can at any time reassert control should they see Muslims posing a threat to a valued way of life.

This impulse can be seen at work in the French anti-hijab legislation or in Geert Wilders's film, Fitna. Anti-immigrant parties gain in strength; a potential nativist movement is taking shape across Europe as political parties opposed to immigration focus increasingly on Islam and Muslims. These parties include the British National Party, Belgium's Vlaamse Belang, France's National Front, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Party for Freedom in The Netherlands and the Danish People's Party.

They are likely to continue to grow as immigration surges ever higher, with mainstream parties paying and expropriating their anti-Islamic message. Should nationalist parties gain power, they will reject multiculturalism, cut back on immigration, encourage repatriation of immigrants, support Christian institutions, increase indigenous European birthrates and broadly attempt to re-establish traditional ways.

Muslim alarm is likely to follow. US author Ralph Peters sketches a scenario in which "US Navy ships are at anchor and US marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims".

Peters concludes that because of Europeans' "ineradicable viciousness", the continent's Muslims "are living on borrowed time". As Europeans have "perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing", Muslims, he predicts, "will be lucky just to be deported" rather than being killed.

Indeed, Muslims worry about just such a fate; since the 1980s they have spoken overtly about Muslims being sent to gas chambers. European violence cannot be precluded, but nationalist efforts will more likely take place less violently; if anyone is likely to initiate violence, it is the Muslims.

They have already engaged in many acts of violence and seem to be spoiling for more. Surveys indicate, for instance, that about 5 per cent of British Muslims endorse the 7/7 transport bombings. In brief, a European reassertion will likely lead to ongoing civil strife, perhaps a more lethal version of the 2005 riots in France.

The ideal outcome has indigenous Europeans and immigrant Muslims finding a way to live together harmoniously and create a new synthesis.





A 1991 study, La France, une chance pour l'Islam (France, an Opportunity for Islam), by Jeanne-Helene Kaltenbach and Pierre Patrick Kaltenbach, promoted this idealistic approach. Despite all, this optimism remains the conventional wisdom, as suggested by an Economist leader in 2006 that dismissed, for the moment at least, the prospect of Eurabia as scaremongering. This is the view of most politicians, journalists, and academics, but it has little basis in fact.

Yes, indigenous Europeans could yet rediscover their Christian faith, make more babies and again cherish their heritage. Yes, they could encourage non-Muslim immigration and acculturate Muslims already living in Europe. Yes, Muslim could accept historic Europe. But not only are such developments not under way, their prospects are dim. In particular, young Muslims are cultivating grievances and nursing ambitions at odds with their neighbours.

One can virtually dismiss from consideration the prospect of Muslims accepting historic Europe and integrating within it. American columnist Dennis Prager agrees: "It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for western Europe than its becoming Islamicised or having a civil war."

But which of those two remaining paths will the continent take?

2) Barack Obama, on the other hand, says Islam is compatible with the modern world, a creative synthesis can for formed:





BROWN: Senator, you are a Christian, but as a child you had more exposure to Islam than probably most Americans ever will. How did that shape you?

OBAMA: Well, I lived in Indonesia for four-and-a-half years when I was a child. And, actually, ironically, the first school I went to in Indonesia was a Catholic school. So, you know, myself and Senator Bob Casey, who’s sitting here, we had pretty similar experiences probably, in part, of at least our elementary school. I then attended a public school, but the majority of the country was Muslim. And the brand of Islam that was being practiced in Indonesia at the time was a very tolerant Islam. The country itself was explicitly secular in its constitution.

And so you didn’t have the oppressive state that was trying to impose people’s religious beliefs. And Christians and people of other faiths lived very comfortably there.
And women were working, and out, and were not wearing the traditional coverings that we see in the Middle East. And so what it taught me, and what it still teaches me, as I think about foreign policy now, is that Islam can be compatible with the modern world.

It can be a partner with the Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist faiths in trying to create a better world. And so I am always careful and suspicious of attempts to paint Islam with a broad brush because the overwhelming majority of the people of the Islamic faith are people of good will who are trying to raise their families and live up to their values and ideals and to try to raise their kids as best they can and that’s something that I think we always have to remember as opposed to assuming a clash of civilizations that sometimes are overheated rhetoric that politically is talked about.

Rest here>>>

1 comment:

  1. "…the overwhelming majority of the people of the Islamic faith are people of good will who are trying to raise their families and live up to their values and ideals and to try to raise their kids as best they can…"

    From my observations living in the U.S., this was certainly true of the generation of my parents (WWII) and to some degree true of my own generation (Vietnam War era). I am a Greek Orthodox and we integrate well with the Arab Orthodox who in turn integrate fairly well with the Arab Muslims (again, of the 45 and older generation). The new Muslim immigrants visible in my area tend to be Somalis and maybe some Afghans; all seem relatively happy to be here and at peace with their neighbors. The invisible new immigrants, invisible because they almost cannot live outside their ghettos, seem to be radicalized and younger. We have relatively few converts where I live (Oregon). So much for a comment on the above. I think it was true once, but no longer, especially in Europe, from what I have observed on the web.

    "[Islam] can be a partner with the Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist faiths in trying to create a better world."

    Sorry, Hussein Obama, this is patently false. The only place where there was relatively peaceful relations between Christians and Muslims was in some places in the Levant, like Lebanon and Syria, and in Palestine (before the state of Israel). There was friendliness (which continued here among those who immigrated to the States, as I described above), but this is a rare exception. Mughal India under the first four emperors (not including Aurangzeb) demonstrated an authentic tolerance between Muslim and Hindu, but at the price of abandoning the supremacy of Islam. Akbar the Great even repudiated the mullahs and started his own version of inclusive monotheism, Din-e-Ilahi, "the religion of God," but drew on native Hindu spiritual resources as well as Islam.

    I don't think the Europeans as a whole will ever turn on the Muslims in the way that, for example, the Nazis and others turned on the Jews. But I do think that civil war will be the eventual outcome across the continent, and that more than the Hellenistic-Judaic-Christian civilization will be the stakes. But the old Europe, the mother of America, will lose the civil war unless an authentic spiritual revival (not tent meetings!) takes root among the people, who love not only the history but the future, who adhere not to the dead faith of the "living" (apostate Christianity), but assume fully the living faith of the "dead" (their faithful and heroic ancestors).

    ReplyDelete