AMERICA, ISLAM,IDENTITY,EUROPE

IDENTITY AND MIGRATION (an abstract)
BY FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
PROSPECT MAGAZINE

Hobbes and Locke argue that human beings possess natural rights as individuals in the state of nature, rights that can only be secured through a social contract that prevents one individual’s pursuit of self-interest from harming others. Modern liberalism arose in good measure in reaction to the wars of religion that raged in Europe following Reformation. Liberalism’s principle was religious toleration and the modern liberalism’s principle was that state power should not be used to impose religious belief on individuals. The freedom protected is for individual’s cultural or religious or ethnic identities.
Taylor points out that modern identity are inherently political because it demands recognition. Contemporary multiculturalism and identity politics were in many ways born in Canada. It is under stood not just as the tolerances of cultural diversity but as the demand for legal recognition of the rights of racial, religious or cultural groups.
The radical Islamist ideology that has motivated terror attacks over the past decades must be seen in large measures the manifestation of modern identity politics rather than of traditional Muslim culture. Oliver Roy declares that radical Islamism has emerged because Islam has become “deterritorialised” in such a way as to throw open the whole question of Muslim identity. Despite Islam’s doctrinal universality, traditional religiosity is not universalistic. Immigrating to Europe, one’s identity as a Muslim is no longer supported by the outside society. According to Roy a “protestantisation” of Muslim belief occurs, meaning salvation in a subjective state that is at odds with one’s outward behavior.
Interestingly, the second and third generations of European Muslims turn to radical Islamism as a form of identity, because, stuck between tow cultures with which they can not identify they find a strong appeal in the universalist ideology of contemporary jihadism.
The problem of jihadist terrorism will not be solved by bringing democracy and modernism to the Middle East. So many terrorists were radicalized in the democratic European countries. In the Muslim world more contact with democracy increases, not dampen the terror problem in the short run.
Modern liberal European and north American societies have weak identities. American identity was always political In nature with a dominant Anglo protestant culture. However there are some unpleasant aspects in it i.e. consumerism, Hollywood’s emphasis on sex and violence and the underclass gang culture.
Most European countries tend to conceive of multiculturalism as a framework for coexistence of separate cultures rather than a transitional mechanism for integrating new comers into a dominant culture. On the other hand, some contemporary Muslim countries are making demand for group rights that simply can not be squared with liberal principles of individual equality.
Asking Muslims to give up group rights is more difficult in Europe than US. As the former still develop communal rights and fail to separate state and church decisively. In these countries national identity is experienced in a way that makes a barrier for the newcomers with different ethnicity and religion. a
Raziyeh Kharidar

By the way, American life is full of religious ceremonies and rituals helping the process of assimilation.
The rise of relativism has made it harder for postmodern people to assert positive values and therefore the kinds of shared beliefs that they demand of migrants as a condition for citizenship. Postmodern elites, particularly those in Europe, feel that they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation and have arrived at a superior place.
My question is according to the above is Islam a problematic spot in the process of the postmodern liberal world? If Muslims due to strict social laws are hard to assimilate in the western liberal democracy, why Jews having the same condition in their own kind do assimilate? What’s more why it should be compulsory for the world to assimilate in this universal liberal democracy? What if for a religion like Islam whose religion and politics are inseparable otherwise it gets valueless? It seems that even in America the absolute liberalism is not performed, as Anglo Protestantism is obviously the core for assimilation.
The paradox is if in a world, itself tied to the dualities, a group for the sake of freedom can make another group stop practicing its beliefs. Is that absolute liberalism possible at all? Will we face a gradual or sudden decline of liberalism in the near future as the world watched the downfall of communism?