We all know that Britain has a very serious radical Muslim problem, but I bet that most people outside of Britain - such as myself -knew it’s as bad as this:

Islamic extremists have created “no-go” areas across Britain where it is too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter, one of the Church of England’s most senior bishops warns today. (more…)

Eugene Volokh received an e-mail from a reader who had read a report about Muslims living in Britain. The reader was upset with some of its findings, for instance that 62% of British Muslims believe that free speech should not be protected if it offends religious groups. Eugene reponds: “opposition to protection for offensive religious speech — at least such religious speech in public places (I don’t know whether the British Muslim survey expressly asked about this) — is unfortunately not “radical” in the sense of being far from the mainstream.” Shortly afterwards, however, Eugene had read the report (PDF) himself as well and comments:

I just got a copy of the survey of British muslims, and it reports not only that 62% of British Muslims generally disagreed with “Free speech even if it offends religious groups” (31% agreed), but 78% supported the position “Punish the people who published the cartoons” (15% disagreed), and 68% supported the position “British people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted” (23% disagreed). So the support for some specific restrictions on religiously offensive speech among British Muslims may be even higher — but it may well be that support for some specific restrictions on religiously offensive speech among Americans (or Britons generally) may be higher, too.

Sure. The problem is, we are not talking about religious Americans now (and we do not have that data), we are strictly talking about British Muslims. What other groups might believe is quite irrelevant for this debate. This report is incredibly important considering the gigantic problem many European countries - albeit especially Britain - with the integration of Muslim immigrants.

I would like to point out more of the findings:
- 30% of British Muslims want to live under Sharia Law - 30%: that’s a minority but it is not a ’small group.’
- only 49% of British Muslims consider Britain to be ‘their’ country
- 29% believe that the holocaust happened “as history teaches.” 17% say it has been exaggerated. 2% say it did not happen at all… 24% did not express an opinion, 23% say they never heard of the holocaust and 6% do not know. That is 53% in total who either said “dunno,” or “the what?” That is very worrisome
- 45% believe that 9/11 was an Israeli-American conspiracy. Only 20% say it was not
- 70% said they understand why young British Muslims might want to carry out suicide operations

Hispanic Americans are angry at Governor Schwarzenegger for saying something ridiculous, naive, racist!

What did he say?

“You’ve got to turn off the Spanish television set. You’re just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster.”

He excused himself, knowing that people would get angry:

“I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say and I’m going to get myself in trouble, ut I know that when I came to this country, I very rarely spoke German to anyone.”

Some reactions:
- “Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., called the governor’s advice a ‘typical sound bite solution to an important issue,’ said Jim Dau, a spokesman for Sanchez.”
- “A Hispanic advocacy group said Schwarzenegger’s comments show his ‘ignorance on immigration issues’,” namely:

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger demonstrated his ignorance on immigration issues once again by perpetuating the myth that immigrants have to reject their old culture and language in order to learn English and assimilate,” said Brent Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

- “Francisco Hernandez, an immigration attorney, said there’s nothing wrong with encouraging immigrants to learn English but there’s no need for ‘immigrant bashing’.”

My reaction: Schwarzenegger is completely right. He is not saying that it should be illegal to watch Spanish TV, he said that if you want to learn English fast, it is best to switch off Spanish channels and to strictly watch English shows. That is - indeed - a great way to learn English.

Aaron Hanscom wrote a very interesting, albeit negative, article for Pajamas Media about American Freedom Alliance’s June 10th conference titled “The Collapse of Europe?” (Some of) the speakers were Mark Steyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Leon de Winter, Philippe Karsenty, Gregory M. Davis and Daniel Pipes.

According to Steyn, it is a simple fact that Europe will become more Muslim because of massive immigration and the divergent demographic trends of Muslims and native Europeans. Malmo, Rotterdam, and cities in Britain already have proven that the future is determined by those you outsource your future to. How can Europeans hope to share their land with an implacable and intolerant minority? Steyn expressed frustration with State Department officials who complain that Iraq is an artificial state but who overlook the unsustainable situation in Europe. Honor killings and Sharia law are incompatible with pre-marital sex and gay marriage. As Steyn put it, if Kurdistan can’t be part of Iraq then “Pornostan” can’t be in the Netherlands.

Steyn was the moderator of the first panel session titled “What has been the role of Islam and the EU bureaucracy in fostering collapse?” Introducing Hirsi Ali, the former member of the Dutch parliament who now works for American Enterprise Institute, Steyn said, “Europe’s loss is America’s gain.” Hirsi Ali explained that for jihad to succeed, a sense of victimization is necessary. Muslims have mastered the art of creating enemies and conspiracy theories which results in group solidarity at the expense of assimilation. Meanwhile, EU bureaucrats make it all too easy for Islamists to fulfill their political projects. It surely made Islamists smile last year when former Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner said, “If two thirds of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this possibility must exist.”
[…]
Philippe Karsenty, a French journalist and media critic, opened his remarks by apologizing for the leading role France has played in the collapse of Europe. He said that in Paris if you quote Bat’Yeor (the author of Eurabia) people will look at you crazy and ask if you also believe in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Their unwillingness to believe in that anti-Semitic forgery doesn’t mean the French are big fans of the Jews. In fact, Karsenty referred to his compatriots as “Paristinians.” While they’re quite willing to send money to the Palestinians in their struggle against Israel, most of them completely avoid the Arabs who actually live in France…

It is good to see a conference like this taking place in America, but it would have been better if it would have organized in Europe. After all, we’re talking about Europe here. It seems to me that European should be interested in… wait for it… the collapse of Europe.

Is that all there is? Only bad news? No, there are those who are more positive:

The conference was not devoid of disagreement. During the panel discussion “Eurabia: Is Muslim domination of Europe inevitable?” Dutch writer Leon de Winter said there is a sea change taking place in Europe: people are becoming fed up with radical Muslims. He described as ludicrous the idea that the Netherlands is in the process of being taken over by Muslims. While he acknowledged that there are no-go zones for Jews in his country, he said that the general public is as Calvinist as ever. He also took comfort in the fact that most Muslims in the Netherlands don’t worship in mosques.

Lastly, Mark Steyn reflected on multiculturalism (something I quite strongly oppose as well):

Mark Steyn reappeared at an afternoon panel on “Multiculturalism and its impact on democratic society.” He called multiculturalism an elusive enemy because one of its very tenets is that there is no point in ever having an argument. The quest to never be culturally insensitive has led to some pretty horrible things. In Britain, for example, many honor killings now go uninvestigated. He could have added that last year a German judge cited the Koran when he rejected a woman’s request for a quick divorce because her husband beat her. Steyn pointed out that multiculturalism is a unicultural phenomenon: only Western countries have signed up for the project. As he once explained to a caller on a radio show, there are very few free Muslims countries. Steyn got plenty of laughs when he said that after he presented the caller with objective statistics showing the lack of freedom in the Muslim world, the man responded, “Well, that’s just your opinion.”

That sums it up, doesn’t it? Facts are “a matter of opinion” in the extreme moral relavist’s world.

Irshad Manji wrote a column for the WSJ’s Opinion Journal about Muslims in America and Europe:

Against the backdrop of civil war, Abraham Lincoln stirred Americans by appealing to their “better angels.” Now some of those angels appear in an unprecedented study about Muslims in the United States–and they may show us how to prevent civil war in Europe.

“Muslim Americans,” released by the Pew Research Center, contains moments of bad news. For example, one in four respondents under the age of 30 accepts suicide bombing. As a reformed-minded Muslim, I say that honoring any religion of peace through violence is like preserving virginity through pre-marital sex. Think about it.

But the Pew report offers a lot more good news. Political Islam has not caught on in America as it has in Europe because most Muslims in the U.S. are–dare it be said–treated with dignity.

The vast majority of those surveyed like their communities and describe their lives as “pretty happy” or “very happy.” Which means lobbyists do not speak for Muslim Americans when they cry that the U.S. hates Islam.

Nice. So this means that, according to Manji, Europe doesn’t treat its Muslim population with dignity and that is the reason why quite some Muslim immigrants aren’t assimilated well.

If only we’d treat them with more dignity! Shame on us.

Well, luckily, Manji realizes that there is much more to it than that: for instance, many immigrants refuse to speak the language of their new country.

Yes, there is also racism, but I find that most immigrants use racism as an excuse. The racism is, by no means, so bad as to become an extremist because of it. The far majority of Europeans do not discriminate.

Discrimination is a problem, we have to fight it, but lets not pretend that if only the discrimination goes away, all will be fine.

Personally I believe that there is one major difference between the US and Europe which explains why US immigrants assimilate better: when immigrants come here, they suddenly are taken care off by the government. They can get welfare, they can get financial help. In short, there is less need for them to learn the language and work hard. In America, if you’re an immigrant and you don’t work you starve to death (as a figure of speech). If you’re an immigrant in Europe and you don’t work, you get money from the government.

So, we need to change that, we need to adopt America’s system. This has to be combined with a broad effort to combat racism of course. We should demand of our immigrants that they work for a living, and they should be able to demand that if they do, that if they are willing to work hard, they will not fail because of racism / discrimination. As Manji writes:

Translation: A common aspiration such as the American Dream is crucial to giving Muslims a sense of belonging to something larger and more dynamic than cultural enclaves.

h/t Holly

The Times reports:

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

Scholars said that the name’s rise up the league table was driven partly by the growing number of young Muslims having families, coupled with the desire to name their child in honour of the Prophet.

To be fair, just about every immigrant family has a ‘Mohammed.’

Muhammad Anwar, Professor of Ethnic Relations at Warwick University, said: “Muslim parents like to have something that shows a link with their religion or with the Prophet.”

Although the official names register places the spelling Mohammed at No 23, an analysis of the top 3,000 names provided by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) puts Muhammad at No 2 once the 14 spellings are taken into account. If its popularity continues – it rose by 12 per cent last year – the name will take the top spot by the end of this year. It first entered the Top 30 in 2000.

Should we consider this a sign that Britain should limit the amount of immigrants she allows into the country every year?

Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people.

Only 3%? That’s it? Then, what’s the problem?

However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the nonMuslim one.

Ah.

Three thimes higher: that is quite shocking, at least to me. Of course, that is not so difficult to do considering that Europeans do not get children anymore (which will give us great problems within a couple of years time, when the baby boomers will retire).

It seems to me that the British government should consider introducing policies that encourage couples to have children. Not just to counter the birthrate of Muslims (which I do not consider to be a problem as long as those Muslims are well integrated), but to make sure that the baby boomers can retire, without ruining the economy.

Whether the #1 name is Mohammed or Jack is irrelevant, at least in my opinion. What matters is whether the society is healthy, living and vibrant.

How mainstream are America’s Muslims?

A comprehensive survey of U.S. Muslims released last week, apparently the first of its kind, offered a mostly mainstream picture of a community that has fallen under a microscope since 9/11.

The poll, which estimates there are 2.35 million Muslims here, found that far fewer of them live in low-income households than their coreligionists in four European countries, and most feel that life is better here than in Muslim countries. A majority are happy with their lives here, and 60 percent said they were concerned about the rise of Muslim extremism. Like most Americans, a majority feel the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

But the phone survey of 1,050 adults by the Pew Research Center, taken between January and April, has generated some heat with its finding that about a quarter of younger Muslims justify suicide bombings under some circumstances, and some note with alarm the number that falls outside the mainstream.

Concluding:

In its reaction to the poll, the Zionist Organization of America, noted the finding that 40 percent of those surveyed agreed that Arabs orchestrated 9/11, while 32 percent declined to answer the question, and 16 percent do not believe Palestinians can have full rights as long as Israel exists.

“Despite being in the main a settled, prosperous community, Muslims are clearly not mainstream in their general political and moral views,” said ZOA President Morton Klein in a statement.

That sounds about right, doesn’t it? American Muslims live (economically at least) like most Americans do, but the views of many, many Muslims are quite different from ‘mainstream America.’

It seems to me that this is a cause for worry. Sure, there are good, and hopeful signs, but there also clearly signs that not all is going well.

An interesting article by Gideon Rachman at the Financial Times.

If you happen to be passing though Malibu next month, why not pop into an intriguing-sounding conference at Pepperdine University on “The Collapse of Europe”. One of the early sessions is entitled - “Eurabia: Is Muslim domination of Europe inevitable?”

My answer to this is “No” it’s not inevitable. In fact, given that the Muslim population of Europe is just 4% at the moment, I would say it’s highly unlikely. But don’t trying telling that to an audience of American conservatives. The idea that Europe is about to be submerged by the Muslim hordes seems to be almost recieved wisdom over there. It is certainly a notion that has launched a great many books. There is “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” by Bat Ye’or; “While Europe Slept – How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within” by Bruce Bawer; “The Death of the West” by Pat Buchanan; and “The Cube and the Cathedral” by George Weigel.

I was depressed to see that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch politician is taking part in the Pepperdine conference. She is a highly intelligent and courageous woman, so it’s a shame to see that she is mixing with buffoons like Mark Steyn, who is giving the keynote address at the conference.

Steyn is the author of the most successful recent book about the alleged Muslim takeover of Europe. “America Alone” earned its author a place in the New York Times best-seller list and praise from President Bush.

While the average might be 4%, I find it worrisome that within a few years time, immigrants will form the majority in the biggest cities of the Netherlands, such as Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Rachman might consider those facts a minor detail, but to the Dutch, they matter. It’s not just about extremism, it’s also about a change in society most people don’t welcome.

Read more at TMV.

Interesting stats about Muslim Americans:

One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says.

The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country’s Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.

Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

“It is a hair-raising number,” said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation — a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with
Israel.

U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: “People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas.”

Other findings include:
* 5 percent of U.S. Muslims expressed favorable views of the terrorist group al-Qaida, though about a fourth did not express an opinion
* Six in 10 said they are concerned about a rise in Islamic extremism in the U.S., while three in four expressed similar worries about extremism around the world.

Also, directly from Pew:

And by nearly two-to-one (63%-32%) Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

Mostly, compared to Muslims living in other Western countries, quite positive stats. On the other hand… that isn’t a compliment.

Marc Schulman: “While Pew considers the finding that two-thirds of an estimated 2.35 million Muslim Americans don’t see a conflict between devotion and modernity, I find it highly disturbing that about 800,000 of them do see a conflict.”

Michelle Malkin: “The AP gets the headline wrong.”

“Like any good Muslim, Ali Karjoo-Ravary went to mosque on Friday seeking spiritual inspiration. What the 19-year-old Iranian-American found, however, was something completely different.”

At the head of a mosque in upstate New York, a foreign imam was leading the Friday service. Sitting on the floor with the other congregants, Mr. Karjoo-Ravary strained to understand the religious leader’s thick accent. Even as he made out the imam’s words, the message made little sense. “The entire sermon was about ‘Don’t let a girl pat your back. It can lead to things,’ ” Karjoo-Ravary recounts.

The imam’s disconnect with American culture shocked Karjoo-Ravary. Trying to gauge the reaction of other young congregants, he spotted a cluster of teen­agers and 20-somethings toward the back of the mosque. They were hunched over and appeared to be earnestly listening to the imam’s every word. But looking closer, he realized their attentive postures were meant to conceal cellphones. The entire group had tuned out the sermon and was texting busily.

Read the whole thing.

As all of you know, I have a lot of respect for Ayaan Hirsi Ali: I do not always agree with what she says, her views are, in my opinion, influenced by certain traumatizing event, but she does raise some good points, and she is a fierce defender of the freedom of speech. She has sacrificed her own safety, for our right to speak our mind, and for that, whether one agrees with what she says or not, she deserves our respect and gratitude.

As Joseph Rago wrote: “All of this is profoundly politically incorrect. But for this remarkable woman, ideas are not abstractions. She forces us back to first principles, and she punctures complacencies. These ought to be seen as virtues, even by those who find some of Ms. Hirsi Ali’s ideas disturbing or objectionable. Society, after all, sometimes needs to be roused from its slumbers by agitators who go too far so that others will go far enough.”

CWonder just finished reading Infidel - Ayaan’s autobiography - and highly recommends it. I read it months ago already and I agree: this book should be read by all interested in the immigration / integration / Islam issue.

Charles Bremner wrote a good article about Sarkozy’s victory in France. Sarkozy himself described the victory as “a mandate for a moral renaissance and radical reform of the over-regulated welfare state.” He said: “Together we are going to write a new page of history. The page, I am sure, will be great and it will be beautiful.” His agenda:

“The French have chosen to break with the ideas, habits and behaviour of the past,” he said. “I will restore the value of work, authority, merit and respect for the nation.”

He would also rid France of its habit of “repenting” for its past historical sins. “This repentance is a form of self-hatred,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy offered friendship to the United States, but urged Washington to act urgently on climate change. He also warned fellow European leaders that he expected them to join him in making the Union more protective.

As reader LThomas pointed out in one of the comment sections yesterday, France and Germany have now both elected relatively pro-American people into office; in Germany Christian Democrat Angela Merkel; in France, Nicolas Sarkozy. Europe moving to the right? I certainly hope so and to a degree I think so. The main causes: immigration and problems with the welfare state. Moral decline is an important factor as well; many people, like yours truly, are greatly worried about this.

Back to Sarkozy: he will have to keep his word. France needs reforms. He has to reform the welfare state, something needs to be done about the high unemployment rate (less regulation is one of the ways to achieve that; so are tax cuts), he has to be tough re. immigration, same goes for riots and crime, the French have to start working (more hours) again: they have to demand a little less and achieve a bit more and they have to do something about, yes, moral decline.

Protests if not riots are to be expected the coming weeks, months and perhaps even years; so be it. Reforms always hurt in the short term.

All will hang on how Sarkozy will deal with protests, strikes and riots. Thatcher went through that process, she refused to give in and, in the end, became one of the best modern PM’s of Britain.

Hopefully Sarkozy will be able to do the same.

Pieter Dorsman wrote a great article about Dutch martyrs Theo van Gogh and especially Pim Fortuyn.

Today, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is taking America by storm and many commentators are struggling to explain her instant success following the publication of her recent biography. As they do they reconstruct her creative partnership with Dutch moviemaker Theo van Gogh, something that directly caused the latter’s death and eventually forced Hirsi Ali to pursue a new career on this side of the ocean. Yet it would not be a stretch to argue that if it hadn’t been for Pim Fortuyn – murdered five years ago today – that Van Gogh would still be alive and that Hirsi Ali’s would still be producing dull policy papers for the Dutch Labour party. Instead they both an uncharted course.

Every political rupture, every shift needs a change agent, a person brave enough to defy conventional thinking and embark on a mission that — even if it fails — will stand as a beacon for future disciples. In America Barry Goldwater rolled the dice and didn’t quite make it, but Reagan in the end benefited from his trailblazing effort.

So it was in the placid, structured and overly politically correct Dutch world where concepts such as success, ambition and renewal were relative unknowns or if they emerged, were met with deep resistance. And although Pim Fortuyn was to some extent part of the Dutch establishment, his ideas, style and tastes were a tad too rich and unconventional for the famed Dutch consensus. Fortuyn was rebuked by all parties – from left to right – and he consequently started his own party, without any constraints, something which probably suited him best. His struggle as a gay man that grew up in a Catholic household in the 1950s had probably given him the courage and raw individualism required to pull off a mission of this nature.

As Fortuyn saw it, provocation and a resulting ‘hefty debate’ were the essential tools to disrupt complacency and find alternative solutions to the challenges of a global and rudderless new century. Books like “Without Public Sector Employees” in a nation governed by pampered and firmly ensconced public servants and “Against the Islamization of our Culture” (in 1997, no less) in a country deeply committed to political correctness, were the opening shots of a much broader campaign.

While Fortuyn’s key strengths were arguing about less government with more room for the private sector and curbing immigration into a nation that was “full”, Fortuyn’s passion and sharp debating skills were above all fueled by an intense dislike of the vested order. The establishment was his real target. Not only had it rebuffed him more than once, he was on an intellectual level able to demonstrate how vacuous it had become. This solidified his passion and support and it enabled him to draw followers from all layers of society.

There were quite some issues on which I disagreed with Fortuyn, I would not have voted for him, if for nothing else then because he was too devisive, but he did something that had to be done: the Netherlands had to get rid of political correctness, the Netherlands had to break with the notion that to criticize immigrants / immigration is (acting) racist, etc.