Some thoughts on Islamic internationalism

Many right-liberal westerners concerned with the threat of Islamic terrorism argue that Islam must be either reformed, and the union of church and state dismantled, or crushed through military intervention and the spread of western ideology.

Personally, I don't see how such an approach can work.

Most of the Middle East's moderate, nationalist regimes that were established by the European powers during the 20th Century have now given way to theocracies, where the union of church and state helps bind together societies that would otherwise fall apart due to factors like tribalism and cousin marriage.

Adding to the difficulty in changing Islam is the fact that it's been around for 1400 years, and doesn't appear to have much of a history of radical reform.

The Middle-East also faces serious demographic problems, with a burgeoning population and a growing shortage of resources, (see here and here) and when times are tough, people generally become more, not less religious.

In such an environment it's difficult to see how Islam can be moderated or defeated.

Rather than trying to moderate Islam in a bid to make it more Western, why not try to reduce the Islamic threat by encouraging particularist Islamic movements through a combination of economic and political negotiation and immigration restriction?

Professor Olivier Roy asserts the radical internationalist Islamic movements such as Al Qaeda, have no long-term future because they have no history, and refuse to recognise themselves in a given culture.

He claims that Islamic internationalism, known as Salafiysm, has little support in the Caucasus and Central Asian Republics where most Muslims follow the Islamo-nationalist creed of Sufism.
Even in the most anti-western Muslim states like Iran, Roy says Islamic internationalism is giving way to particularism, with discussions about culture replacing discussions about Islam.

Reading Roy's take on Islamic politics it seems likely that strategists in China and Russia are already aware of this trend and take it into account in their foreign policy.

While the U.S and its allies are still pre-occupied with trying to moderate Islam by attempting to spread western values, China and Russia generally operate pragmatically and don't meddle in the cultural politics of other nations unless they feel their own national interests are directly threatened (Tibet being a possible exception).

In regard to Islamic terrorism by Muslims living in the West, Roy says:

"The Western-based Islamic terrorists are not the militant vanguard of the Muslim community; they are a lost generation, un-moored from traditional societies and cultures, frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations.

And their vision of a global ummah is both a mirror of and a form of revenge against the globalization that has made them what they are"

If cultural alienation and radical internationalism go hand in hand, then it seems that one of the best ways of containing it is to restrict immigration from countries with radically different cultures, particularly in Europe where opportunities for many immigrants are limited.

While Roy does not advocate increased immigration restrictionism, his theory seems to provide a good reason for doing so.