Jag har tidigare skrivit här om de hårda anti-muslimska utfallen från ledande republikanska politiker i den pågående striden om vem som ska bli USAs nästa president.
Det har lett till att jag fått en del mejl från läsare som velat upplysa mig om den fara muslimer utgör också i Sverige.
Det fick mig att tänka på ett samtal jag hade för en hel del år sedan med Christopher Caldwell på amerikanska The Weekly Standard.
Syftet med mötet var att diskutera amerikansk politik, men det kom att handla om muslimernas roll i Europa.
Kort efter vårt samtal utkom Caldwells bok** ”Reflections on the Revolution in Europé: Immigration, Islam and the West” (2009)**.
Jag har nu tittat på några av de recensioner boken fick.
Martin Woollacott, tidigare utrikeschef mm på The Guardian, skrev i sin recension bl a:
Christopher Caldwell's contention that immigration has not only changed Europe but revolutionised it has a topical plausibility. Immigration, he says, and above all Muslim immigration, has planted in the heart of a weak and confused civilisation communities, rapidly growing in number, that have already changed Europe to suit their needs and beliefs. And the chances are, he insists, that in the future we will bend to their will rather than that they will bend to ours.
Where he is right is in underlining the fact that immigration was encouraged by elites who took a ludicrously short-sighted view of its costs and consequences. The idea was to prop up industries already in decline and, later, to staff industries, such as health and tourism, the full cost of which our societies refused (and continue to refuse) to pay. The manning of underpaid and menial positions could be maintained only by a constant influx of new migrants, since people in established migrant communities either got better jobs or chose, like many in the native white population, to depend on the welfare state and to have no jobs at all.
When the Danish cartoons furore was at its height, newspapers the length and breadth of Europe upheld the right of free speech - yet the vast majority of them somehow neglected to reprint the offending sketches. The code insists, says Caldwell, that Islam must always be defined as a peaceful religion, yet ignores the way in which Muslim leaders in Europe lay down red lines that the non-Muslim majority is not supposed to cross. Once Muslim majorities emerge in certain towns and areas, Muslims will demand the right to live not only differently, but also separately, and Europe will lose control, Caldwell believes, of significant chunks of its territory.
Fouad Ajami skrev i sin recension i New York Times:
The European welfare state tempted and aided the new Islamism. Two-thirds of the French imams are on welfare. It was hard for Europeans, Caldwell writes, to know whether these bold immigrants were desperate wards or determined invaders, keen on imposing their will on societies given to moral relativism and tolerance. In Caldwell’s apt summation, the flood of migration brought with it “militants, freeloaders and opportunists.”
The militants took the liberties of Europe as a sign of moral and political abdication. They included “activists” now dreaming of imposing the Shariah on Denmark and Britain. There were also warriors of the faith, in storefront mosques in Amsterdam and London, openly sympathizing with the enemies of the West. And there were second-generation immigrants who owed no allegiance to the societies of Europe.
The Economist påminde i sin recension om Enoch Powells tal i april 1968 då han beskrev massinvandringen som en katastrof.
Europe's indigenous population is ageing fast, with a quarter of it over 60. Immigrants have large families. Moreover, Europe is no match for Islamic self-confidence: “When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter.”
_Mr Caldwell's unremitting pessimism about Europe raises all sorts of questions, both large and small. Are Europeans really as feeble as he asserts? They have discovered that some principles are non-negotiable in their relations with Islam, particularly women's rights. And is Islam really as self-confident? The willingness of so many Muslims to take offence at any slight—a cartoon here, a novel there—could be a sign of profound cultural anxiety. _
_Mr Caldwell is also worryingly selective in his use of evidence. He all but ignores the multiple examples of upward mobility and successful integration. He dwells on the fact that many Muslim men feel emasculated by the success of their women without bothering to wonder why so many of the women are successful. _
That said, this is an important book as well as a provocative one: the best statement to date of the pessimist's position on Islamic immigration in Europe. Supporters of liberal policies need to sharpen their arguments if they are to prevent neo-Powellism from sweeping all before it.
Mark Mazover, historieprofessor på Columbia University, hade i sin recension i Financial Times inget positivt att säga om den konservative amerikanen Caldweill:** it reveals the beleaguered cast of mind commonplace among some Americans at the moment when the waning of Washington’s power became evident and a new epoch in world history opened up.**
Dagens debatt är mycket mera präglad av hysteri och i fallet USA av en växande skräck för allt utländskt.
I mitt samtal med Caldwell förstod jag att hans gedigna kunskaper om Frankrike präglade hans bild av muslimer i Europa.
Jag tror att länder med en dynamisk ekonomi har goda förutsättningar att hantera de förändringar som det växande antalet muslimer i Europa innebär.