Islamization vs. Freedom of Religion

Islamization is the creation of a religiously coercive environment where there is no freedom of religion. This is similar to how religion is informally coerced on all Jews living in Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) cities and neighborhoods in Israel. While religious enclaves must be tolerated under freedom of religion, Islamization certainly is not legitimate when it is applied to an entire country such as Iran. A problem arises when such religious enclaves risk taking over an entire nation as almost inevitably will demographically happen in Israel in the long term. We are seeing Islamizing enclaves in cities of Western Europe and the question is if they are not integrated or immigration stopped, will these enclaves eventually grow to impose religion on all citizens? This is a serious question considering the severe problem inherent in introducing liberal democracy in many Muslim countries when the majority votes for Islamist parties when free and fair elections are held. Why are the Muslim enclaves in Western Europe not integrating into society? There is of course racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia causing informal discrimination but one important reason is that Islamists do not want integration into larger non-Muslim society since this leads to secularization and assimilation. 

This is similar to how Haredi enclaves in Israel oppose integration into the larger Israeli society yet want to hijack the state and impose their strict lifestyle on all Jewish citizens by means of a theocratic regime. Regarding Israel, the conclusion will be that for Israel to remain a democracy, Israel will have to become less democratic in coercively making sure that Haredi Jews are integrated into the labor market and perform military service. Institutions will need to be created to make sure that Israel remains liberal by becoming somewhat less democratic.

The disparity in fertility rate is not nearly as drastic as in Israel (democrats vs. Haredi theocrats) as in Western Europe is the growth in the Muslim population primarily driven by immigration rather than natural increase. If this continues will European nations eventually find themselves in a situation similar to that of Israel where a liberal yet less than perfectly democratic regime will ultimately need to be instituted in the place of liberal democracy. It appears that Islamization largely takes place among the descendants of immigrants who live in Islamist ghettos where Islamist norms are increasingly coercively imposed. This of course is not the American-style multicultural utopia imagined by many politically correct European politicians but is rather dystopian Europe. 

While there are many Muslims who have left the ghettos and are well-integrated into liberal-democratic society it should be recommended that immigration is stopped altogether until European Muslims are integrated into European society. Otherwise, European nations may ultimately end up like Turkey governed by Islamists under secularist constitutional constraints in a semi-democratic political system. This is not the future most Europeans want and considering the inability to integrate segregated Muslim citizens should all immigration be ended until Western Europe’s Muslim minorities have been properly integrated. Western European nations would be wise to follow the example of Denmark in this respect.

At stake is not only liberal democracy but also freedom of religion since if Islamization is applied on the national level will there be little if any freedom of religion and certainly no freedom to leave Islam. This illustrates that liberal democracy is not possible under all circumstances and hence the need to avoid circumstances leading to the abolition of liberal democracy. The inevitable demographic fate of Israel provides a stark warning to Western European nations that liberal democracy is not possible in a situation where the majority votes for theocratic political parties. Explicitly anti-democratic political parties already occupy 25% of the seats in the Knesset (30 out of 120 mandates) and Western European nations may find themselves in a similar situation if they continue with their present immigration policies.

While Islamists claim that anyone opposing them is an “Islamophobe”, Haredi theocracy advocates similarly claim that anyone opposing them is an “Anti-Semite”. An immigration moratorium for Europe is not about religious bigotry but rather about opposing religious bigotry and theocracy and defending liberal democracy and the indispensable tradition of the Enlightenment.

Published by Daniella Bartfeld

Daniella Bartfeld is the founding director of the Aliyah Organization

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s