Question:
Why are the new generations of Muslims in the West becoming radicalized instead of becoming secular?
Answer:
Most people answer this question by saying that these new generations are becoming radicalized because:
- They are searching for their identity.
- They face political and economic marginalization, so they react by turning to radicalization.
But the real question is this that these same problems exist for many other non-Muslim immigrant communities too, who have come from third-world countries and settled in the West. They also face political and economic disadvantages, yet they manage to integrate into society fairly easily instead of becoming radicalized.
So let us now look at the real and important (but mostly hidden) reason that creates this difference.
First Point:
Would you believe it if you were told that although the West strongly supports freedom of expression, the right to criticize Islam is still not being properly exercised?
Yes, in today’s West, under the banners of “respect for religion,” “social peace,” or fear of “Islamophobia,” the path to open criticism of Islam gets blocked in one way or another. As a result, proper criticism of Islam does not take place on television, in universities, colleges, or schools. (This issue will become clearer as we move forward.)
Second Point:
It is very important to understand the difference between these two types of criticism:
- Political criticism of Islam
- Direct criticism of Islamic beliefs and doctrines
The problem is that the criticism of Islam available in the West is almost entirely “political” (such as issues related to immigration, terrorism, failure of integration, demands for Sharia law, and political Islam).
However, you will find almost no direct criticism of Islamic beliefs and doctrines on Western television, in the media, universities, or colleges.
This is an extremely important point, and it is the real root of the entire problem.
Third Point:
Without direct criticism of Islamic beliefs, all kinds of political criticism remain completely ineffective.
Here is why.
Muslim preachers in the West have been given full opportunity, without any challenge, to plant the following idea firmly in the minds of the new Muslim generations that there really exists a God named Allah in the heavens. He is All-Knowing and All-Wise. Our limited human intellect cannot fully understand His divine wisdom. Therefore, we cannot challenge the commandments of this All-Wise God, even if they appear to go against human reason. Only these divine commandments can bring true success and salvation to humanity.
Once this belief is successfully planted in the minds of young Muslims without any criticism, doubt, or challenge, it becomes almost impossible for them to ever give preference to man-made secular laws over Islamic Sharia laws.
After this kind of mental conditioning, no matter how much political criticism you direct at them (for example, regarding women’s rights or the rights of non-Muslims), you will always face failure. The fundamental belief in the existence of Allah in the heavens neutralizes every such political criticism.
As a result, even if these new Muslim generations appear somewhat integrated on the surface, in reality they can never fully and properly integrate into secular Western society. There will always remain some gap in their integration, which leaves both them and the host society mentally unsettled.
When we talk about real and complete integration, understand this point clearly that these young Muslims mentally divide life into two separate boxes: Religion belongs to the heart, while secular law belongs to the streets.
Although the majority of them are not radical and may appear quite well integrated, this inner conflict and tension still exists. It keeps them restless and makes complete integration difficult for them.
In many cases, this inner conflict can be reduced and integration can be completed if they are also allowed to hear direct criticism of Islamic beliefs.
Do you now see the importance of direct criticism of the belief in a God named Allah in the heavens?
Fourth Point:
The new Muslim generations in the West are receiving teachings about their faith in a completely one-sided manner.
This is the point where the West is facing complete failure.
Because there is almost no open discussion or criticism of Islamic beliefs at any public level (television, universities, colleges, etc.), Muslim preachers have a complete monopoly over the minds of new Muslim generations. From childhood, through mosques and madrasas, they successfully plant in the minds of these children the belief that there is indeed a God named Allah in the heavens who runs the universe, and that if they ever abandon His commandments in favour of secular values, they will burn in eternal hellfire.
In simple words: Muslim preachers in the West have far more opportunities to preach and spread the message of Islam to the new Muslim generation than non-Muslims have to criticize it and to bring their message to these new Muslim generations.
This has created an almost completely one-sided system. Even while living in the West, these young Muslims remain trapped in an isolated intellectual system where they are shown only the positive side of Islam and never its flaws. This makes it extremely difficult for them later to challenge or reject any teachings of Islam that go against humanity.
Fifth Point:
Although there is political criticism of Islam and Muslims in the West, it often produces the opposite effect.
This political criticism revolves around issues such as immigration, terrorism, failure of integration, and demands for Sharia law. It makes the new Muslim generations very defensive. They take it personally and feel that the West hates them. As a result, they become even more radicalized.
And the clash and wars in some Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) is also not helpful.
Sixth Point:
The West should learn from its own history.
The West itself has passed through these stages. In the beginning, criticism of the Church and the Bible was considered impossible. Later, political criticism of the Church began, but eventually the Bible itself was not spared. Open public criticism started against some of its inhuman and unjust teachings, especially from the Old Testament. People became used to open discussion, debate, and criticism of religious beliefs.
Real change in the West began only when direct criticism was made against the core beliefs. Before that, people would criticize the Church but still remained Christian in faith, and Biblical laws continued to be enforced. Secular laws based on human reason only began to replace Biblical laws when direct questions were raised against the beliefs of the Bible itself.
In contrast, Muslims living in the West today can hear political criticism, but the moment any doctrinal criticism is made against Allah or Muhammad, they become extremely angry. As a result, open public debates and discussions that could directly criticize Islamic beliefs are rarely held on television or public platforms, often stopped in the name of “respect for religion” or “social peace.”
Final Point:
What is the solution?
So the question is, what is the solution to protect the new generations of Muslims from radicalization?
The answer is to organize open, two-sided public debates at public platforms, on television, in universities, colleges, and schools.
In these debates, Islamic preachers should be given full right to openly preach and promotw Islam, give their arguments, explain why Islamic beliefs are correct, why Sharia laws are better than secular laws, and why they should also be implemented in the West.
At the same time, non-Muslims should also be given complete freedom to criticize Islamic beliefs openly, without facing accusations of “disrespecting religion,” “disturbing peace,” or “Islamophobia,” so that their message can directly reach the new Muslim generations too.
This is the only way to pull the new Muslim generations out of the isolation in which they currently receive messages only from Muslim preachers in mosques, and not from the secular world.
Only when these young generations hear arguments and criticism from both sides will they be able to see the full picture and make an informed decision. Only in this way can real reform take place in society.
P.S.
As for the new Muslim generations living in Muslim countries, forget about them for now. In Islamic countries, Muslims have created such a closed and isolated system that no voice of criticism against Islamic beliefs ever reaches these young people. They become victims of completely one-sided brainwashing. That is why bringing reform in such Muslim societies is extremely difficult.
Criticism Received on This Article:
After the publication of this article, some circles raised criticism from various angles. They argue that if open discussions and debates on religious beliefs begin to take place on national television, in universities, and other public spaces, this could prove to be a dangerous strategy.
In their view, it could create division in society. The society might fall victim to riots, chaos, and provocation, which could increase hatred and distance between different communities.
They also have concerns that the opposite reaction could occur. When beliefs face direct questions and criticism, Muslim youth might become more defensive. This could push them closer to more extremist groups.
Similarly, they expressed the worry that during religious debates, religion inevitably becomes a target not only of criticism but also of some degree of ridicule. This can create problems related to law and order and damage social harmony. Therefore, in Western societies, giving priority to peace and order over freedom of expression is considered a political necessity.
Our Response:
This is a serious criticism of our article. These concerns do exist, especially in places where institutions are weak. Some problems could arise there. Therefore, we cannot completely deny this reality.
However, our view is that in the long run, the real danger lies in avoiding these discussions altogether. The fear that public debate will create "riots" or increase radicalization will, in our opinion, only push society toward intellectual stagnation.
If we stop discussions out of fear that the other side might get agitated, or that their deep feelings might get hurt, which could worsen law and order, then this is essentially the same as being blackmailed by extremists. Every extremist group could then use the same threat to force the state to remain silent according to their wishes.
The foundation of a secular society is not built on the idea that no one should feel offended or hurt by debates. Instead, it is built on the principle that the proper way to express displeasure is by responding with arguments, not through violence, threats, or taking up arms.
Consider religious extremism like a pressure cooker. When we allow it to spread in closed rooms (such as mosques and isolated systems) and do not confront it at the public level, it only grows more intense. Eventually, it explodes with a bang. On the other hand, when a young person sees his seemingly "unbeatable" religious preacher and religious teachings rendered completely speechless in front of logical arguments, then the "sacred" idols built in his mind begin to break. The steam starts to escape from the pressure cooker.
Radicalization happens when a person becomes convinced that he possesses a kind of "complete and unchallengeable truth." But when he realizes that there are serious and weighty objections to his basic beliefs, objections for which his religion has no convincing answer, then he moves out of his rigid state of certainty and enters a state of doubt. Both history and psychology show that this "doubt" is a very powerful weapon against extremism. Therefore, the real solution to radicalization is "doubt," not "silence."
In fact, perhaps all of history bears witness that whenever old ideas began to be challenged anywhere, they were immediately accused of spreading "disorder." But it has always been the same as medical treatment: the surgery needed to cure a disease does cause pain, yet leaving pus or cancer inside the body leads to death.
However, we must also admit that not every kind of "criticism" is useful. Only respectful, argument-based criticism can prove truly beneficial.
Understand this important point: the job of a secular state is not only to control traffic on the roads. The most important task is also to develop the ability of critical thinking among its citizens. All secular societies have come into existence on the basis of discussion, debate, and the principle of criticism. Without such criticism, genuine reform is simply not possible.
Therefore, enabling citizens to put even their so-called sacred beliefs forward for discussion and criticism is extremely necessary for a secular society. On the other hand, choosing silence in the name of law and order is actually equivalent to watering the nursery of extremism.
So once again, our request is this: let ideas compete with one another in the open field. Let doubt quietly continue its work against all forms of radicalization. In this way, society will become truly strong from within.
Hassan Radwan