Will Europe Islamize or Muslims Liberalize?

[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]

Only 3% of Swedes believe that being Christian is a very important part of the national identity while 91% of Iraqis, one of the largest groups of migrants to Sweden, support Islamic law.

The striking thing about a recent Gallup poll is how it presents the contrast between first world nations and third world nations on theocracy. The people of virtually every First World nation polled believe that religion is not an important part of national identity while vast majorities in the third world believe that it is.

The divide may be starkest in places like Sweden and Iraq, between liberal European nations and post-revolutionary Islamist entities, but it also holds true across non-Western and non-Muslim ones as well. Not only Americans, Germans and Italians, but a majority of Japanese and South Koreans also don’t connect religion with national identity, while the vast majority of not only Tunisians, Indonesians, and Bangladeshis, but also Filipinos and Kenyans tie together religion and nationhood as an integral whole that is at the heart of their civic identities.

Around the world, prosperous secular countries which attract migrants dismiss the centrality of religion while the populations of poorer countries which migrate outward hold to their religious identity.

The impact of Kenyans and Fillipinos moving to formerly Christian countries may not produce fundamental conflicts, but the migration of Muslims to non-Muslim countries sets off a primal conflict of which the regular terrorist attacks are only the most public manifestation.

Over the years between 33% and 40% of Muslim colonists in the UK have been polled as supporting the imposition of Sharia law, but while younger Britons are much less likely to be religious or believe that Christianity has an important role to play in their country, younger Muslim colonists are far more likely to wish to impose Islamic law on their host country.

43% of younger Muslim colonists believe in redefining the UK as an ‘Islamic state’ while only 16% were opposed. The vast majority support a ‘blasphemy’ ban and other mandatory forms of Islamic law that would transform the UK from a liberal democracy into an Islamic theocracy.

The Labour government is essaying to legislate some of the more highly demanded elements of Sharia, such as a blasphemy ban, under the guise of fighting ‘Islamophobia’ which they define as  “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. One of the likely members of the new ‘Islamophobia’ council is an imam who had advocated banning a Shiite movie considered blasphemous by Sunnis because it had an actor playing Mohammed.

This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with a bigoted theocracy intolerantly enforcing a particular flavor of Islamic law under the guise of fighting intolerance and bigotry.

Theocracy is an uncomfortable subject for European liberals who spent generations campaigning for secular societies (or for Christian societies so liberal that they encompass everything except traditional values and beliefs) only to have to confront that the very immigrants on whose behalf they advocate are the ones imposing a new theocracy.

European liberals fashionably dismiss calls for Sharia law as either a “Islamophobic conspiracy theory” or radicalization by new immigrants failing to integrate due to “Islamophobia”, but polls show that second and third generation Muslim colonists are more likely to insist on Islamization.

First generation Muslim colonists are more likely to view themselves as immigrants while their native-born children see Western countries as belonging to them and yet not fully their own.

That is why they want to Islamize them.

The Gallup poll shows that Islamization is not radicalization. Not unless the majority of Muslims in their own countries are ‘radical’ and then radical would cease to have any actual meaning. The integration of religion and state is not a radical view, but a traditional one. The advocates for a secular society have forgotten that their view was a radical one and are busy undermining it.

America’s Founders built a wall of separation between church and state not because they did not want prayer in schools or any mention of religion, as the ACLU insists, but to avoid theocracy of the kind that had torn apart Europe, including England, by separating civil and religious authority so that individuals were free to follow their consciences and still be citizens.

This concept has virtually no purchase in the third world and the reason for it goes to the heart of the clash of civilizations. Individualism, freedom of conscience and tolerance are concepts foreign to tribal societies and most migrants are coming from tribal societies. Islamic societies are particularly built on a denial of the notion that there can be a good non-Muslim society.

A non-Muslim society is either a Dar-Al-Harb, at war with Islam, or in some treaty state of transition to Islam, and is expected after a period of Dawah missionary activity or Jihadist violence to submit and become part of the Dar-al-Islam. There is no room for a society which has no theological relationship with Islam, completely rejecting Islamic law and yet remaining at peace with Islam, in a religion that continues Mohammed’s original mission of conquest.

Immigration forces a collision between individualistic and collectivist societies that even without the demographic superiority of the new arrivals is far more likely to end with the fall of the individual than with the liberalization of the collective. After two generations of mass migration, Europe’s Muslims have become more theocratic, not more liberal, and the violence is a symptom of a deeper underlying conflict that European elites continue trying to wish away.

When Muslim organizations campaign for blasphemy bans and other forms of Sharia law, they express the underlying idea that they cannot be good citizens until European nations become good Islamic ones because Islam and citizenship are integrated on a tribal and moral level.

And there is every sign that European countries are more likely to become Islamic nations than that Europe’s Muslim colonist population will become liberal Europeans.