Some thoughts. Forgive length, tediousness and circumlocution…
In the end, the question of ‘does Islam condone the use of violence’ or ‘does the Qu’ran support the slaughter of innocent people’ is void. Belgian law forbids it and that is the only law that counts in Belgium. Frankly, I do not care for Muslims or non-Muslims who state that ‘Islam forbids these acts’, for the very simple reason Islam is not law in Belgium, or any other Western country.
The idea that Islam does not support (certain) violence is untrue, it does (as does each and every religion). Mecca was not conquered by use of cunning arguments. Read what the Qu’ran has to say about apostasy (which is less violent than what the Old Testament has to say, by the way). What happened in Paris and now Brussels is in fact nothing more than a very extreme interpretation of certain texts in the Qu’ran (and Hadith). As such, Islam has no monopoly; one just has to read about the actions by deeply devout Christians missionaries in Africa who drive the hatred against homosexuals right up to murder. Or the treatment of women by the ultra-orthodox Jews. Or the horrendous caste system of Hindu India. Or many, many more things done based on (or by order) of just about every religion throughout the world and throughout man’s history. ‘Homo homini lupus est’.
One of the reasons for what now seems to become a daily threat is the fundamentally different, and incompatible, basic aspects of the culture in Islamic countries (which may be, but need not always be, based on Islam itself), and the present Western culture. I might therefor say ‘Arabian’ in stead of ‘Islamic’ for the remainder.
There are basically three ‘levels’ of human culture, and a community may retain aspects of either three in various levels.
1) Barbaric. Here the main aspect is ‘power’ and how to get it and keep it. In a way, it is the most fully animalistic aspect of humans; the most ferocious lion becomes leader of the tribe (killing of any offspring of opponents), ditto in humanity. There are no rules or laws, other than the rule of the strongest. Which may be as whimsical as the weather, and the stronger is not accountable for anything, and certainly not to the weaker.
2) Tribal. Here everything is tied up in rules; what is not mandatory is forbidden. Taboo is an important factor. As is honour and pride. And the honour and pride of the whole tribe hinge on the submission of each and every member to the rules; if any one member violates the rules (or appears to do so), the honour of the whole tribe is contaminated and reduced. The set rules are usually not based on arguments or discussion thereon, or founded in reason and factuality, but mostly ‘mystical’, as in ‘revealed to the priesthood’ or such. Each tribe, therefor, is (indeed: must be) one ‘set’ of people, often interrelated.
3) Civic. Here still most things are tied up in rules, but rules may shift according to changing consensus, insights, argumentation and such more. Each person is a separate, individual being, whose actions may influence others, but individuals cannot be held accountable to the actions of others, as each individual is responsible for and answerable about his/her own actions only. Thus, actions of an individual do not afflict the ‘status’ of the whole. Various groups of various insights and convictions can live together and mingle on any level. A civic society is, therefore, multifaceted, variegated and of various levels of interrelation.
Western society, at large, is somewhere between tribal and civic, while retaining aspects of barbaric, and each society (such as European countries, or states in the USA) may show different ‘mixes’ (as may, for ex, the big cities or rural areas within those). Barbaric aspects one may see in how CEO’s of big companies operate nowadays (have a look at how and why the financial crisis came about, and why the mechanism thereof still is fully in place and working)
Where things now clash is because of the influx (and growth) of a subset within Western countries of cultures that are far more tribal, even barbaric, than the culture of those Western countries.
People coming from a tribal structure, and living in a (basically) non-tribal society find themselves immersed in a society that doesn’t support there tribal rules, and, at that, faced with people from other tribal structures that are fundamentally different from their own. Quite a few people from those structures will swiftly adapt, especially if they see the expanded possibilities to pursue and enhance their capacities and talents. You no longer need to become a carpenter because your father was one, you can become a stand-up comedian instead (or a politician, which basically is the same but without the jokes). You no longer need to stay home and have 15 kids just because you are a woman, but can have a job of your own and become independent. You no longer need to pay tribute to Quatzulovercoatl because you must, by order, on pain of pain, but may still do so if you happen to believe in him, but don’t have do if you no longer do say, and even say so aloud.
This loss of structure and demand for self-regulation will also scare quite a few of such groups because they cling to that structure to give shape to their lives, and now have to fend for themselves. Such people, if anything, will become possibly even more tribal and ‘orthodox’. These two directions usually forms a rift within such a group, and may take many generations to work out.
What is, almost without exception, the greatest problem, is that those who were in ‘natural’ (and often hereditary) power (such as priests, fathers, males, elders, etc), and whose authority was not, could not be, questioned or even doubted, suddenly are bereft of their ‘obvious’, ‘righteous’ power. No longer do they set the rule, but are subdued to the rules and laws of the country they have settled in. Which may be different, even violently so, to what they are used to. No longer are the young ones ‘obviously’ to do what you say. Suddenly, a woman may say ‘no’ and marry whom she wants, rather than who you decided. People may turn away from the One True God and go camp with the Many False Ones. You must suddenly ask, rather than simply command, and may not even get the answer you wanted.
The reaction of influx cultures falls into three types, roughly
1) People may accept the law of the land, and adapt. Such aspects of their culture as fit within the ranges of law and rule are retained, others adapted or dropped. The more congruent the incoming culture is with the culture it comes into, the easier this goes, of course. There are quite a few people with Dutch names in the US, who, other than for that name, are indistinguishable. Even when they were born in The Netherlands. But one might look at the Jews, for instance, who have kept much of their own culture while adapting successfully into various other cultures. Not that they were often rewarded or appreciated for it..
2) People may outwardly adapt insofar as they cannot avoid, but inwardly keep to themselves, usually also by living in ‘clusters’ of their own kind. They do not adapt to their new social environment, and therefor cannot become a real part of it, and will marginalise, and thus not only fail themselves, but make their children either fail too, or make it all the harder to become successful members of the society they live in.
3) People may reject the culture they now live in. At the same time they depend on that rejected culture for income and ‘gadgets’. Often, these people are ‘proud’ people, with very little to be proud of, which will lead to aggression and violence (due to, basically, jealousy). They will adhere to some extreme sectarian religious group that justifies, even feeds, their anger.
What complicates the picture in the West is the ‘magical thinking’ so natural to 4-year old and politician; the latter still, against all evidence, in a happy multicultural society where all kinds of cultures live happily together in one big melting pot. That does not happen, for it cannot happen. The idea that various, opponent, mutual exclusive ‘viewpoints’ can all be equally applicable is an impossibility. You cannot have ‘to rape a woman is forbidden’ and ‘forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war]. Cultures are notequal, and even if they were, but different, the culture of the land you come into is superior to yours in that you must comply to its laws, rules and ways of conduct. Allowing various incongruent aspects of various cultures to be sustained is like having putting two different kind of fuel into one tank, and expect the car to drive smoothly. It won’t.
What most politicians think is that, when you get an influx of several, or many, different cultures into your country, 1) will automatically happen if you don’t do anything, let alone demand anything. What they forget is the groups 2) and 3), who will pull on anyone from their culture leaning towards 1). Such as, for ex, women starting to make up their own minds and demanding a place equal to men. Or young men adhering to what the policeman says, rather than their fathers. It is not for nothing that this kind of magical thinking is called ‘politically correct’. This to distinguish it from factuallycorrect…
The fact that things like 9/11, Madrid, London, Paris, Brussels now have happened, and will continue to happen, is that the governments of pretty much all Western countries have failed, abysmally, to set the rules clear and sharp for those wanting to come to our countries. Basically:
1) This is our language, you learn it.
2) These are our laws, you will adhere.
3) These are our norms an values, you will comply.
4) If you fail, or refuse, or hinder anyone from learning, adhering or complying, you will be expelled.
And thus separate those who will live in our culture and become a successful member thereof (retaining any and all aspects of his birth-culture as fit within the rules given) from those who won’t or prevent other.
As far as I am concerned, anyone may believe whatever he or she wants. However, if you come into my country (yes, mycountry, I was born here, live here, work here, pay my taxes here, vote here, socialise here, live every aspect of my live here; not because I think The Netherlands are the zenith of humanity and righteousness, but because I happened to be born here, and do believe, with all its faults, it does do better than many others when it comes to give equal opportunities to all, indiscriminately, and would like to see that at least maintained, if possible further idealised), I do demand you will comply with what we have in way of laws, rules and ways of conduct (in short: culture), and lay off anything and all things that do not fit within that. If you feel you cannot, or will not, leave.
Some may call this fascist, racist, elitist. They can go on doing so, as far as I can care (which isn’t very far at all). “Fascism is everybody else’s fascism but your own”. In chemistry, you can mix some things easily, some with care and some only to your regret and ruin. In humanity, things are not that different, only more complex. It is high time – far too late, in fact – that politicians start taking their responsibilities, and separate the sheep from the goats. This applies for everyone going from one culture to another, for whatever reason. If I ever need flee to another country, one I do not like, I have the choice to either comply, or seek one more adapt to how I want to live my life. Such applies to all.
All best (and apologies for length; it is a complex matter, and not one I find easy to set into words),
gep
Topic: Another attack in Europe..