Okay. You seem to be able to see the different sides of the issue and I accept your analysis and your experience. I admit that making this an entire Jihadi thing is presumptuous.Quote from spect8or:
If you want to say, look immigrants from Muslim cultures are hard (or harder) to integrate, fine. I'll agree wholeheartedly. To me, all non western immigrants are hard to integrate. Doing so takes time. The biggest reason America was able to integrate the vast numbers of early 20th cent immigrants was the 50 (or so) years in which immigration was brought to a virtual standstill. If you want to say we need another moratorium, fine, I'm with you. But it's a mistake to read "Islam" into every problem a Muslim might bring.
But considering what has been going on elsewhere in Europe and the world, we should not be quick to eliminate the global âbuzzâ of political Islam from the picture, and how it may effect the Muslim youth of today in terms of their view of the West, and how it can make their grievance against their secular governments more common and frequent. Many of them are certainly not âpiousâ and they drink beer, eat pork and so forth. But is being religiously Islamic and following religious law the only prerequisite for being influenced some way by the anti-Western sentiments coming from the political side of Islam?
Having said that, and assuming that the Muslim youth today are not that different from your experience a decade ago, Iâll be open to the notion that political Islamâs influence on the riots, direct or indirect, is trivial.
At any rate, since these subjects are no longer âtaboo,â we should expect more objective analysis of the current events coming from the formal intelligencia, rather just pundits and bloggers. Pipes, on the other hand, is formally educated and well versed on the subject, and I think he tries to be objective. But a lot of people think otherwise because they believe that being âpolitically correctâ is being objective.
)