A Clash of Civilizations?

The future belongs to Islam. This sentence -- the title of a 2006 article by controversial Canadian writer Mark Steyn -- sums up the greatest fear of a large and growing number of conservatives. Most "Westerners" agree that Osama bin Laden's brand of jihadist extremism presents a serious threat. What sets Steyn and his ideological fellow-travelers apart is that they see Islam itself, and the majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, as even more dangerous to freedom, democracy, and the whole of Western civilization.

Steyn claims that due to demographic trends, political folly, economic stagnation, and cultural weakness, the West is in the midst of a terminal decline. In most of the "first world" from Europe to Japan, birthrates have dropped below replacement levels and there is a marked shortage of young workers. In order to prop up their lagging economies and feed their vast social welfare systems, elderly European nations have taken in huge numbers of young Muslim immigrants. These claims are not all too controversial, though some would no doubt challenge his view that socialist programs have killed Europe's economies and produced a culturally self-destructive mentality.

What makes Steyn controversial is that he argues that the result of these trends will be nothing less than the conquest of Europe (and eventually all of Western civilization) by barbaric and fanatical Muslims. He claims that virtually all Muslim immigrants are hostile to the nations they adopt, and that decadent modern Europe lacks the will to defend itself against Muslim attack. He claims that using a combination of political pressure, intimidation, and violence Muslims are working to dismantle Western democratic institutions and destroy Western culture from the inside.

In support of his theory, Steyn points to hostile statements by fundamentalist Muslim leaders, the violence surrounding the Danish Muhammad-cartoon controversy and the French riots of 2005 (many of the rioters were young Muslims), and what he sees as pervasive extremist attitudes in the majority of Muslims. Those with ideas similar to Steyn's are also known for unearthing every crime, instance of political pressure, or controversial statement by Muslims -- no matter how minor and inconsequential -- and touting them as evidence of Muslims' barbarism and basic hostility.

Most disturbing are the measures proposed to deal with this "Muslim threat". One popular writer on the "Gates of Vienna" blog (the blog's name references the Muslim siege of Vienna in 1683, which they believe is continuing today) proposed what amounted to the criminalization of Islam:

"We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. [...] Do not allow Islamic public calls to prayer as this is offensive to other faiths. [...] The veil should be banned in public institutions [...] Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities."

Ironically, these supposed defenders of freedom and democracy are so caught up in their hostility to Muslims that they frequently propose the wholesale violation of fundamental religious and free speech rights. They of course see no contradiction here, since the conflict they theorize is an existential battle -- it is not only justifiable but totally necessary to use all means necessary to destroy the Muslim threat.

To be sure, the above-mentioned demographic and economic trends, and violent incidents do point to a pattern of friction between the West and Muslims. What Steyn seems to be missing is that such friction has always existed and exists between many different groups in our changing and unstable world. The world is becoming ever more interconnected, and people of vastly different cultural and religious backgrounds are rubbing shoulders more than ever.

The rise of politically-minded Islam, caused largely by the decline of socialism and pan-Arabism toward the end of the 20th century, has in a number of places led to conflicts with facets of secular democracy. Extremist and fundamentalist ideologies have indeed gained a worrisome amount of traction among disaffected Muslim youth throughout the world. There are no doubt significant tensions surrounding the Muslim immigrant populations of Europe, as large-scale immigration always brings tension. These tensions have furthermore been exacerbated in many places by unemployment, poverty, and discrimination.

No reasonable person would deny that there are many such issues that must be addressed, but paranoid theories of Muslim invasion and conquest do nothing to help the situation. In fact, the inflammatory rhetoric of these anti-Muslim conservatives mirrors the hostile pronouncements of their extremist foes.

Among those who view Muslims with such suspicion and hostility, the term "Islamophobia" is widely derided as foolish, meaningless, or nothing but a means to stifle criticism of Islam and Muslims. Their denial that any such thing as Islamophobia exists is more than a little bit ironic. Where else could this fantastical belief -- that virtually all Muslims are hostile to democracy and freedom, and that they are hell-bent on the subjugation of all non-Muslims -- come from, if not a deep-seated and ignorant fear of Islam and Muslims?