[Islamic] culture happens to have fallen back in material applications; there is no reason whatever why it should not learn its lesson and become equal in all those temporal things which now alone give us our superiority over it—whereas in Faith we have fallen inferior to it.
It is too easy to feed into the panic narrative that currently sets the tone. There is a terrorist behind every corner, a flood of refugees seeking to replace the native populous, and Islam is crusading for world domination. It is easy to regress into low brow hatred and xenophobia; railing against the brown skinned and desert religion. One can be prudent, concerned with self-preservation, without it resulting in angry lynch mobs. Likewise the leftist narrative that condemns anti-immigration, embraces Islam without question, and parades humanitarianism is no better, and is quite possibly worse. Only a people with a death wish is willing to open a border out of utopian sentiment and passively submits to an aggressive foreign culture. I mention both of these prominent narratives in an attempt to temper, to be prudent about affairs without regressing to crass xenophobia. A steadfast ‘no entry’ stance, not a single individual, while remaining stoic and not regressing to hatred.
There is a misconception that the West is under a coordinated attack by Islam. While it is not coordinate, but it should be a major threatening concern. There is not an agenda, nor a militant crusade, and the average muslim is not complicit in some scheme. There is a threat yes, but I think it is incorrect to look at religions as if they are military entities or behave as such. One must look at religions for what they are: an ideology. Christianity and Islam both are proselytizing religions. Each intrinsically seek to expand, much like a germ or a creeping moss. At one point in history Christianity was supreme at this. Recent statistics are showing Islam has surpassed Christianity in its annual increase. If people look for the spread of Islam to be through hard power and militant force then they will be altogether disappointed. How Islam can and will spread will be through soft power, through filling the vacuum left in Western civilization, through being a walking example of devoted faith. With the fall of Christianity, the spread of reductionist materialism, the spread of slavish morality that dissolves rather than solidifies, and the pathetic attempt put forth by secular humanism to replace religion have left the West existentially ripe for the taking. The only bulwark in plain view is the Western devotion to classical liberal ideas; the preference for liberty and free thought. Even though Europe and the US reign supreme in material conditions and individualism, is commitment to that and that alone enough to prevent cultural erosion and the advancement of Islam? I admit that is a grandiose and broad question. Nonetheless we do see slow and steady shifts occurring; not a roaring Great Crusades, rather soft permeating influence. A minority culture that does not assimilate and retains its faith without question can be a threat to the dominate culture if that dominate culture is waning. We have seen this in France, Sweden, and Germany. They are the ‘canary in the coal mine’, the cautionary tale. Much like kudzu, one allows only some to enter, and soon enough it grows rapidly throughout and overtakes.
Another misconception is the conflict of rhetoric declaring Islam a ‘religion of peace’ or a militant religion. I find this to be a non-question as there are various forms of devotees across the spectrum. The moderate Muslim found in any town USA that attends school soccer games and shops at Target may live a drastically different life than a Muslim that lives in Saudi Arabia or a Muslim that lives in Kenya, and all three are drastically separate from a Muslim extremist like ISIS. One cannot equalize these severe differences. One cannot generalize based upon a small sample. To generalize about all Muslims based upon mild and moderate Muslims found in suburbia US is as flawed as generalizing about all Muslims based upon only the most extreme ISIS members. There is a common tent that is Islam in the categorical, but it is crude to generalize too much based on too small a sample. It is true Islam cannot be compared to Christianity, and a comparison to Judaism can only go so far. The legal aspects of Islam, known as Sharia, makes it far more political in temperament than Christianity. It is quite a different species, both tenacious and self-preserving above all. It stands its ground, and will gain ground where it can. Islam is inherently self-defensive and aware. Islam is to be both highly respected and perceived as a legitimate cultural threat if it propagates accordingly.
There are three major disparities that I find bring up questions and doubts about its assimilation into Western culture, or if such an assimilation could occur or be desired to occur. The first is the most obvious, the secular classical liberal values of which the West is based upon is incompatible with the strict nomocracies of Islamic nations which base national laws upon the laws of God. Of course the vast majority of those who migrate to Western countries do not seek to found such a system here, it is not their intention, although if the assimilation into the dominate culture is lacking then it does foster better grounds for potential political influence and co. Second is pertaining to women, and without a doubt Islam is strictly patriarchal. Women have fought Christian influence for centuries to attain the liberty it enjoys now, so for liberal leftists to staunchly defend the strictly patriarchal Islam is going back on this and celebrating its own potential oppressor. The same is said of homosexuality and LGBT individuals in general, of which it is mind boggling to see defend Islam at large. This only fully illustrates the passivity and drive to self-demise found often in the cultural left. In its pursuit of universalism and tolerance it is willing to divest itself of power and defend even those that would snuff it out if given the opportunity. The cultural left does not seek to empower itself in the positive, only to reactively martyr itself through willing sacrifice. The third is the proselytizing nature of religion, which like Christianity, would please it most to see every soul convert to its belief. A proselytizing religion cannot be faulted for its own nature, but those whom do not share its belief must be aware of its desire to expand and gain power. Islam is unique in that it does not proselytize and forbids this behavior. People come to Islam due to what they see in it and its followers, as a beacon of truth. This is all the more reason the West, by this I mean the US and including European nations, must be fully aware and cautious of its spread and influence. It does not proselytize, but it is still increasing annually at an alarming rate that is predicted to outnumber Christianity.
While I do advocate absolute strictness in immigration policies, I also believe there should be a severe degree of assimilation when a minority culture migrates into a larger dominate culture, if they are to enter at all. The term ‘multiculturalism’ has become a meaningless term thrown about by the left and right. A tool used to ‘break up’ healthy status quo for the sake of abstract and vain ‘diversity’. What is ultimately true no matter the nation in question, there is always a cultural hegemony. There are preferred cultural values and traditions which are dominate, which are precedent. The US is exemplary at containing multiple smaller cultures within while maintaining a predominate overarching culture of specific values of which they all share, or all loosely agree upon. This has not been so in Europe. Pew Research has confirmed the increasing rise of Islam and Muslim birthrate, as well as the decline of native European birthrate and decline of Christianity. Given mass immigration without assimilation into European nations, the constant birthrate and imported steadfast faith, how will this severely impact the political climate over multiple generations? There have already been multiple conflicts in European nations, from crime, to unemployment, to sexual assault. The people are put second, behind this humanitarian foolishness that fetishizes ‘saving’ refugees and others. This is where worry arises, and a legitimate threat is discerned. Assimilation is vital when bringing in a foreign population, and the foreign population must be willing. This is what I mean when I say Islam will not expand through hard power, if anything it will expand by soft power via cultural influence due to lack of proper assimilation, through birthrate, through steadfast faith. It is the ‘nature’ of culture, the ‘purpose’ of a dominating religion, and it will spread if not kept in check or met with an equally powerful influence. One should not channel their hatred or anger toward refugees nor Muslims, this is incorrect. How can one be angry at a people and ideology that only seeks to flourish and prosper? This is inherent to an organism. The anger must be directed toward the EU, toward those Europeans whom defend this unfiltered immigration, those of the social left whom are so pathetic and naive as to appeal to sentimentalism and soapbox morality rather than analyze tangible consequences and concern for their own collective self-preservation. Nations must put their own first. The West must rekindle its own soul and wake up from this coma.
The West fails in faith where the Islam succeeds highly. The West has become a land of base materialism, hedonism, a decrease of Christian faith, and a sad attempt by secular progressives to replace or compensate Christianity with scientism and humanitarianism. Two cultural bulwarks against the spread of Islam throughout history have been the Church and Nationality. In other words, a unified collective identity that held steadfast. In our postmodern age the very defining detail that makes it postmodern is its lack of grand unifying narration. The people lack collective identity. The West is dealing with an existential crisis, an identity crisis, and has been for over a century now. It may end in a dystopia that the political right has feared, or maybe a coherent synthesis occurs that results in far better than our meager speculation.