Financial Times: Muslims in Europe

[St Disibod]

The Financial Times launched the first of an eight-part series on Muslims in Europe last Monday (yesterday).

The three main stories were headlined (each headline is linked to the full text):

Britons ‘more suspicious’ of Muslims
Religious fault line in Europe
Head count belies vision of ‘Eurabia’

And here were some of the key findings of a Harris Interactive poll (it sampled attitudes across six countries- the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, and the US; with over 1,000 respondents from each country, while only 1 per cent of the respondents were Muslims themselves):






There is some food for thought here; however the survey has to be taken in context. For instance, while someone might not want their child to marry a Muslim we must know the underwriting reason to determine the importance of that sentiment. Do people think Muslims are unsuitable partners, or is it that people want their children to marry from their own religious community- a Jew for a Jew, a Catholic for a Catholic, etc? And would an observant Evangelical prefer their child to marry an observant Muslim or an atheist? So the marriage question, and the resulting figures, raise far more (quite interesting) questions than it settles.

But beyond that this analysis provides a bit of nuance to a topic that all too often is dealt with in a manner that is untethered to reality. For instance, despite all the talk of a clash of Islam and the secular state in France since the 2005 riots* the French remain among the most open to Muslims- more so than the other nationalities they are likely to have Muslim friends, they see no problem with a Muslim also being French, they see these French Muslims as suitable marriage partners for their children, they believe Muslims have been at the receiving end of unjustified criticism and prejudice, and they do not consider them a threat to security. Yet at the economic level the integration of Muslims into France leaves a lot to be desired. Patrick Weil, a political scientist at the University of Paris 1- Sorbonne, said: “In France we are very good at cultural integration. We are very bad in fighting discrimination, especially in high-level jobs. In the UK it is the opposite.” So there is good and bad news for each country and the Muslims therein.

The final story is well worth reading for those who are losing sleep over ‘Eurabia’ and the looming imposition of Sharia Law across Europe. Despite the ramblings of Bernard Lewis** of late, it seems the numbers plainly don’t add up to a predominantly Muslim Europe any time soon. There are predominantly Muslim cities, and Muhammad (and its variant spellings) is a very popular name in Europe. But there are also a lot of Singhs in the phonebook, and I haven’t had cause to fear a Sihk conquest yet.

Anyway, the next part in the series will be on Islam in European politics.


*- A BBC reporter recently recounted bemusedly a letter he received from a woman living in one of the central states of the US. She wrote to query whether France had fallen yet to the Islamic insurgency there as she had read somewhere that France had nuclear weapons and she was worried about what the Muslims might do with them. I don’t think he took the trouble to write back to her- she is probably giving her old Cold War fall out shelter a fresh lick of white paint.

**- I don’t undertand why people still listen to this man, perhaps he once had a fine mind but he seems plain crazy at this stage. He was the one leading Arabist, and he really was isolated, who thought that invading Iraq was a sterling idea. His current themes are the Islamic conquest of Europe by demographics and the apocalyptic intentions of the Iranian regime, which he now thinks should also be invaded.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Just because the birth-rates are falling in Muslim countries doesn't mean that will be the case with regard to Muslims living in the EU. You also have to remember that births are only part of the picture - immigration from the Muslim world will likely make up for any hypothetical future decline in Muslim births - especially if Turkey gets into the EU.

[madura]

There is some food for thought here; however the survey has to be taken in context. For instance, while someone might not want their child to marry a Muslim we must know the underwriting reason to determine the importance of that sentiment. Do people think Muslims are unsuitable partners, or is it that people want their children to marry from their own religious community- a Jew for a Jew, a Catholic for a Catholic, etc? And would an observant Evangelical prefer their child to marry an observant Muslim or an atheist? So the marriage question, and the resulting figures, raise far more (quite interesting) questions than it settles.

Perhaps the rules governing conversion from the Muslim side are the main cause for concern - viz. a non-Muslim man who wishes to marry a Muslim woman must convert to Islam. A non-Muslim woman marrying a Muslim man can convert or not as she chooses, since women are not regarded as likely to provide dominant intellectual influence in a household.

Reciprocity, i.e. conversion to the religion of the non-Muslim spouse, is not tolerated and the convert is even liable for the death penalty (at least in theory) since it equates to apostasy.

[Pidge]

The questions are interesting. The question on "faith based schools" seems (to me, anyway) to be a little biased towards the "yes" answer. If the question said "religious schools, teaching children their religious beliefs", you'd be likely to get a stronger "no".

Also, the question of "is the government doing enough..." is always going to get the same answer: no. People always think that the government should "do more", even if they're unfamiliar with what the government is currently doing. The people who answer that they're doing enough are either people who don't know, or government supporters.

[St Disibod]

You also have to remember that births are only part of the picture - immigration from the Muslim world will likely make up for any hypothetical future decline in Muslim births - especially if Turkey gets into the EU.

Well yes, the Muslim population of the EU will rocket if Turkey becomes a member- that would be quite expected after the accession of a country with the sixth-largest Muslim population in the world. But once in, whether they stay put or roam around will have no impact upon the overall population of Muslims in the EU, unless roaming affects their birthrates somehow.

Running at an average of 2.5 children per woman, the birthrate is hardly unmanageable. Indeed, it sounds like quite a good figure to balance the declining birthrates in other EU countries. Of the ten Central and Eastern European States that have entered the EU since 2004 only one, Slovakia, has a positive population growth rate.

[ibis]

Just because the birth-rates are falling in Muslim countries doesn't mean that will be the case with regard to Muslims living in the EU. You also have to remember that births are only part of the picture - immigration from the Muslim world will likely make up for any hypothetical future decline in Muslim births - especially if Turkey gets into the EU.

I was going to say that I'm sure the demography article would attract the usual posters spouting the usual "demographers, what do they know?" sh1te, but that's before I scrolled down and discovered that FT had already roundly rejected their wildly emotive conclusions.

Also, the question of "is the government doing enough..." is always going to get the same answer: no. People always think that the government should "do more", even if they're unfamiliar with what the government is currently doing. The people who answer that they're doing enough are either people who don't know, or government supporters.

Not necessarily the case - remember that our government apparently provides free cars to Nigerians, and so forth...people may be ignorant, rather than just not knowing.

[St Disibod]

The questions are interesting. The question on "faith based schools" seems (to me, anyway) to be a little biased towards the "yes" answer. If the question said "religious schools, teaching children their religious beliefs", you'd be likely to get a stronger "no".

Well that's a bit of a mouthful. I'd be inclined to use the word "denominational" myself, but in the UK that does throw up a few problems. The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church there run several joint schools and a university. So "faith-based" is a technical as well as a dressy term. However, even taking into account the spin inherent in the term, it is hardly an isolated incident of a pointed or toned-down term entering every-day speech. We purchase health insurance, not illness or sickness insurance- the choise of the word "health" being specifically chosen to make the concept more sellable, I think H. H. Asquith's government was behind that little bit of packaging. A good modern day equivalent is "co-location," which is a rhetorical mask for the privatisation of healthcare. What "patient-centred" is supposed to mean is beyond me- maybe the HSE have their board meetings around occupied trolleys.

Also, the question of "is the government doing enough..." is always going to get the same answer: no. People always think that the government should "do more", even if they're unfamiliar with what the government is currently doing. The people who answer that they're doing enough are either people who don't know, or government supporters.

And of those who think the government is doing too much? Such an opinion is held by c.20 per cent blocs in Italy, the UK and the US, and it is above 10 per cent in Germany and Spain. These are not piffling numbers.

[gnash1970]

Just because the birth-rates are falling in Muslim countries doesn't mean that will be the case with regard to Muslims living in the EU. You also have to remember that births are only part of the picture - immigration from the Muslim world will likely make up for any hypothetical future decline in Muslim births - especially if Turkey gets into the EU.

Likely why? Are you sticking to your apocalyptic vision in the face of the facts? The last sentence of the Eurabia article - the US National Intelligence Council predicts there will be between 23m and 38m Muslims in the EU in 2025 – 5-8 per cent of the population. But after 2025 the Muslim population should stop growing so quickly, given its falling birth-rate. In short, Islamicisation – let alone sharia law – is not a demographic prospect for Europe.

Now can you explain

1. How less than 5% of the population of Europe are going to bring about The New Caliphate that you've been banging on about? Who is going to impose sharia law on the 95%+ of us that have no interest in that prospect?

2. Why do you continue to believe this when good, well-sourced evidence is presented to you? Why are you choosing to believe something that no sensible person believes is a realistic scenario?

These are genuine questions. I'd really like to know.

[St Disibod]

The Financial Times series continues: a list of all the stories is here.

I was particularly struck with the FT’s summary of how certain, influential US commentators perceive the Islamic component of Europe:

The politics of the EU’s 16m Muslims is a much-discussed topic. Some commentators, particularly in the US, portray these followers of Islam as a unified bloc, pushing European nations towards radical policies.

“The French government’s stance against the Iraq war and US foreign policy more generally seeks in part to appease Muslim opinion,” the thinker and writer Francis Fukuyama wrote in 2004.

According to the American author Bruce Bawer, the previous French president, Jacques Chirac, “wouldn’t have dared risk angering French Muslims by participating in the ouster of a man – Saddam – who was a hero to millions of them”.

Omer Taspinar, research fellow at the Brookings Institution, says European Muslims “are becoming a more powerful political force than the fabled Arab street”.

The report, by contrast, continues to emphasise that European Muslims are much like any other European- they are much more concerned with the bread and butter issues, such as health and social services, than they are with “Islamic Politics.” European Muslims are not a cohesive bloc that think and vote collectively- for instance the French Muslim Council could not even decide on the ending dates of Ramadan. One professor insightfully highlighted that rather than European Muslims being a powerful political force in Europe today, there are far more votes to be gained in feeding the prejudicial anti-Muslim hard right than there is in appeasing the Muslim street.

[St Disibod]

The most recent edition of the series is here.

In Yihad in Spain: the obsession to reconquer al-Andalus, Gustavo de Arístegui, a diplomat and member of parliament for the Popular party, writes: "For Islamists, Europe is the new frontier. Radicals are bent on converting Europe to Islam, by persuasion or by force, beginning with the reconquest of al-Andalus."

Mr de Arístegui's book has been influential. Published in 2005, it is now in its sixth edition. He does not believe Spanish sovereignty is at risk, but laments that moderate Muslims have not condemned al-Qaeda's territorial ambitions more emphatically.

[...]

The vast majority of Muslims in Spain, however, say fears of a "silent reconquest" are overblown.

"Reconquest? For what, and for whom?" asks Tolba Sidi Mohammed, a translator from Mauritania who lives in Granada. "Most Muslims who have settled in Spain have come fleeing hunger, or political persecution, or both. So the idea that we are bent on reconquering Spain is absurd," he says.

I think that snipet captures this issue rather well. That Muslim immigration is considered a politically salient issue across Europe has far more to do with the native European reaction than it has with the actions of Muslim immigrants. Jihadist terrorism undoubtedly complicates the issue. But so far the targets have had much more to do Iraq than they have to do with a clash of Islam and Christianity or European secularism. I think Bin Laden himself asked rhetorically once why Sweden was not under attack when Bush repeatedly returned to his argument that Jihadists hate America because of America's freedom.