I came across a few articles today, reflecting on Europe’s Muslims and potential policy approaches for addressing the radicalization of Muslim youth around the world:

Martin Wolf: Tough liberalism is the only response

The experience of the US in Iraq demonstrates, for example, that empires do not work. Without some legitimacy, only a ruthless despotism can retain an empire. The US lacks the legitimacy and, happily, the ruthlessness. As inconceivable as a world empire is a universal religion. Today’s world possesses a hodge podge of faiths and non-faiths. States now rest on single religions (as in Iran or Saudi Arabia), civic creeds (as in the US), national identities (as in Japan), procedural values (as in Switzerland) or on no shared identity (as in much of sub-Saharan Africa).

It is far easier to enumerate the challenges than find the solutions. But a tough-minded liberalism, in its European more than American sense, is the only answer. That was the solution proposed by the founders of the multilateral world order after the second world war. It remains the best solution today. We must agree, within reason, to differ. In essence, this means that we agree more on procedural norms than on substantive ones. Moreover, we enshrine those procedural norms within institutions.

Essentially, Wolf is advocating a multilateral approach, not out of some misplaced sense of warm and fuzzy world unity, but because the alternatives (empire or balance of power) can no longer be applied successfully on a global scale. He criticizes the recent American tendency towards unilateralism, because “it leaves the US shorn of legitimacy, bereft of allies and desperately trying to impose order by force”. Managing differences in a pragmatic way, rather than trying to stamp them out, is the only way to maintain stability in a highly-connected world full of competing interests.

Next up, Economist explores the possibility of reform from within:

In Europe’s Midst

It would be wrong, though, to seek to exclude or lock up every imam who has uttered a provocative word. The struggle against the jihadis is the struggle of European tolerance against the closed mind of bigotry. It is a struggle that will ultimately depend upon Islam itself to guide its young men towards good deeds rather than the security services to identify those who have turned bad—vital though that plainly is. British Muslim groups have reacted well by vocally and unequivocally condemning the terrorists. It would be even better if they could now lead public marches against the men of violence and, within their communities, a public debate against jihadism.

For what is needed is a free and open debate within Islam, one in which the modernisers emulate the tactics of the extremists in a crucial way: that they exploit Europe's free flow of ideas in order to win the argument against those keener on medieval practices and violence. Ultimately, that will be what makes jihadis empty their heads of hatred.

This is interesting. Qutb was known for being able to discuss Islam in a manner that was accessible to laypeople. Basically he cut out the boring, pedantic rambling that characterized theological discourse at the time and wrote simple and straightforward books for the masses. Oversimplified and full of impoverished thinking, certainly, but easy to understand.

In my experience, reasonable discourse is often impeded by strongly-held prejudices and information gaps. Mideast leaders have purposefully exacerbated existing anger and resentment felt by Muslims over various political/social issues, including Western intervention in the region over the last century or so. Controlling the flow of ideas (e.g. school curricula, newspapers and broadcast media) to spin events and build support for a given political agenda (including misdirection) is a practice common to all authoritarian governments. It may even lead to complete dismissal of any Western perspective simply because it is Western (and therefore biased against Islam), an approach that was advocated by Qutb in a number of his works.

In many cases, encouraging hatred and discouraging contact (e.g. integration) served a number of interests in the past and may continue to do so in the future, unless there is incentive to change. External pressure can easily be spun to imply “imperialist regulation” of Islam, so there is really no other option but to change from within. To me, that means encouraging Muslim clerics to have more than a superficial understanding of the West, particularly if they are living in a Western country. Qutb’s own opinion of America was based on highly anecdotal, personal observation, yet his view has persisted. I think there is a similar risk with Muslim preachers who warn against mixing with those belonging to the jahiliyya without having any real exposure to Western practices.

It also means encouraging religious debate between Muslims, but not in a manner that is offensive. Authors like Irshad Manji, who are ostensibly trying to reawaken debate in Islam, are so condescending that they alienate the very people they are trying to engage. Her book, The Trouble With Islam Today (amusingly, my earlier edition left off the word “Today”, which makes for a much more provocative title), is praised by Western readers because it's written for Western audiences. Her depiction of Islam is so hostile that I wonder if she's trying to provoke some mad cleric into declaring a fatwa against her, just to prove a point. Attacking the core beliefs of a billion people doesn't generally lead to constructive discussion and/or reform.

Finally (and I know this one has been beaten to death), the US does have to work on its image in the Middle East. Not only in terms of policy approaches and execution, but actually responding to market expectations and packaging key messages for people in the region, not for people at home. There are common interests, if you look hard enough. As a Muslim friend of mine once said:

“Whatever’s happening in Iraq, London or Afghanistan, never forget what side we should be on. If they get their way, all of you will be wearing burkas.”