Thursday, April 26, 2007

United Caliphates of Europe Powerpoint

Update: Some of the slides have been reposted with higher quality thumbnails. For full quality slide image click on the slide to enlarge.

Besides normal employment and academic work Catholicgauze had been busy with the United Caliphates of Europe: A Geographical Look at Sharia Microstates (abstract). The project examines the rise of radical Islam and Muslim terrorist groups in Western Europe.

Here is a slightly edited version of my Association of American Geographers PowerPoint presentation. Right now I am in the process of trying to get published. So without further ado here is the presentation with a few notes.

This is a study of radical Muslim society in urban Europe. While this is not the typical area of military studies, understanding trouble spots and points-of-origin of military problems is key to geostrategic operations.

After the end of World War II Europe adopted the welfare state model. This combined with lower birth rates has led to the need to important workers. Many of these workers are from the Muslim world.

Some of the Muslim immigrants have interpreted the European ideas of tolerance and human rights to mean that their beliefs will be accepted and respected and that assimilation would not be required.

By no means are all Muslims involved in terrorism. Muslims in Eastern Europe have traditionally been conservative in their beliefs and not aggressive in their actions. Muslim migrants in Western Europe; however, have a higher tendency to be radicalized.

Why certain urban areas are taken over.

How certain areas are taken over

External actions of a microstate

Internal actions of the Microstate

Unlike other ungoverned spaces which tend to cut themselves outside, microstates are highly connected with each other and the Muslim world.

Questions or comments?


MDIJim said...

Your presentation is kind of alarmist. You're taking together a lot of isolated incidents and trying to make something out of them. That is junk social science. Example: you cite a survey in which 13% would support a violent jihad. How about saying that 87% would NOT.

Catholicgauze said...

These are not isolated incidents. The only thesis of my presentation is that certain areas have been abandoned by the home government as no-go zones or something similar. In these areas now one can sometimes find Sharia-style government. These areas have been proven fertile training grounds for acts of terrorism like the 3/11 Madrid bombings, 7/11 London bombings, the killing of Van Gogh, the riots in France, etc.

While those who support terrorism in the Muslim community are in the minority, there are those who have done massive attacks with lethal results.

The 13% are those who "admire" al Qaeda and seem to be prepared to fight now. Many more have some level of sympathy for the group.

Adrian said...

On some of the slides where the text gets pretty small, I'd just split it into two slides. You don't want to cram too much on one slide and have people squinting to read the text because they won't be totally focused on what you're saying.

Catholicgauze said...

Here at GTWC! a side mission is ruining people's eye site. Actually, the way blogger compresses files the thumbnails come up small while clicking on a slide enlarges it. I will add a note now.

Jay@Soob said...

"certain areas have been abandoned by the home government as no-go zones or something similar.

What seperates a state (USA, Canada, France, etc.) from an effective non-state (Somalia, PA, Afghanistan) beyond the obvious sectarian and tribal divides? The existence of a universal system of law.
By allowing these "no go zones" a state invites an inflation of non-state "collectives" whose ideology is (especially in the case of Sharia) very much contrary to that of the prevailing society.

Catholicgauze said...

Once again a great comment, Subadei. I'll have to remember that one.

Unknown said...

GTCW, very nice! A pointful effort to make sense of the challenges underlying the so-called GWOT. Thanks for the care.

Jay@Soob said...

Thanks CG.
I would invite those that would toss your presentation aside as "alarmist" to have a look at a post at Chicago Boyz.

MDIJim said...

The Caliphate allowed religious minorities to govern themselves in civil affairs. That was called the millet system. As far as I know, Israel, yes, Israel the evil oppressor of Muslims, operates that way.

Fundamentally, civil law in all countries is a system for sorting out claims and counterclaims arising from birth and death. Who is a legitimate child? Who is a legitimate parent? What is a legitimate marriage? These questions were answered by customs that became codified into religion. States built upon and appropriated these systems because of their social utility. There is no better way to raise a child as a good citizen than within an intact family. There is no better way to assign a dead person's property than to give it to 'legitimate' spouses and children because that way is accepted by the community and minimizes violence.

European citizens understand and respect their civil law because it comes from democratic institutions that adapted it from Europe's common Christian heritage. Muslims weren't at the table when this happened and evolved different concepts. Some of them might see application of European civil laws rooted in Christian or secular concepts as a threat to the religion that shapes their lives. We have a similar situation in this country with right-wing Christian opposition to state legitimization of marriages between certain individuals. Ideally, the state should not involve itself and these issues should be settled by contract, but society has not evolved that way.

We must find a way to fashion a truly secular civil society that eschews all religious influence based on a very strict reading of the First Amendment; or we must allow communities to govern themselves in their own way while using the criminal law to deal with issues such as forced marriage and stoning of adulterers. We'll never get there if we consider every assertion of sharia as potential terrorism.

Catholicgauze said...

The history lesson is nice but has little to do with the current situation. The new Sharia states are fundamentalist and closer to bin Laden than Mamet II. But remember: even the "tolerant" Ottoman Empire waged Jihad against Europe and required Christians to give up their sons to join the Janissary.

While not areas are problems a fair deal are causing great trouble. Swedish ambulances will not venture into certain parts of Stockholm because they will be attacked by overwhelming numbers. During the French riots, there was no rioting in No-go areas. The rioters went outside their microstates into France proper. In Sharia courts in Europe there have already been sentences of stoning and "honor" killings. Finally, groups can freely assemble in microstates and act out terrorist attacks like 3/11, 7/7, 7/21 etc.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting debate. I do agree that many country's present day laws are based on the dominant religion that was present during the making of the laws. However, over times, many countries do adapt by tayloring the laws to present day need, atleast to a certain extent. Although some muslims might feel discriminated upon because they cannot live their lives by the Sharia because they live in a new country that does not play by those rules, it does not mean muslims are being discriminated upon. Religious views from political frameworks need to be removed to have a truly secular country. In this country we have the crazy Evangalicals who want to inject religion into politics. In many countries there are the radical muslims who want to implement the Sharia into politics.

One might argue, who am I to say what they can and cannot implement. Well, I feel that any law that blatantly discriminates on a group of people, whether it be race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. are all wrong. It was a bunch of old MALE farts that came up with these rules on how women should live their lives. Call it Culture, but it should be criticized, because it is not right. It does not matter what their culture says. For example, there are positives about the Sharia. Crime is usually down, discipline is prevalent and there is a sense of community. However, Sharia infringes grately on a womans right to do many things. Even though this might be their culture, no woman is truly allowed to speak.

I think it is time for people to be able to critique and criticize other cultures when great inujustice is being done to someone. Because most aspects of these cultures that greatly infringe on a group of people were never all inclusive. Those old male farts should call it the 'ole male fart culture' rather than Islamic culture and should apply it to themselves and not include women as they were never consulted to begin with.

Also, there is this idea that its just a radical few that are doing this. However, that radical few is lot bigger than we give credit for. Read up and you will realize that the radical few is far greater that what the Western media estimates.

It is time that rules be made for HUMANITY and not based on religion although some aspects of one's culture can be still maintained without blatantly discriminating on other. Certain aspects of religion such as "do not kill you neighbor", "do not steal' can be applied because those are HUMAN laws that were implemented into religion to begin with.(man! that might read contradiction, but I hope you all understand what I am truly trying to say).

Catholicgauze said...

Good points anonymous, I am a fan of the religious "Golden Rule": Treat others as you want to be treated.

"old male fart culture"- I'll have to remember that one, too!

Pangloss said...

I didn't think the presentation was alarmist, even a bit, until the last slide or two. Speaking as an amateur in the counterjihad movement I think you need to prepare the ground of your presentation for the extremist statements like the "watch out for the real holocaust" and "freedom go to hell". Currently the flow is somewhat jarring, and might prompt the more timid among your audience to think of those statements as outliers, from one-percenters, rather than extremist views of mainstream Muslim organizations. Perhaps an analogy to the Hizballah fortification of Lebanon south of the Litani would help pave the road.

Or mention the fatwas from Saudi and local imams that instruct Muslims living in Europe to avoid doing any honest work for pay, as that helps the state to survive, and to work to undermine the state's finances and security by making their money as criminal parasites or by suckling at the teat of the socialist welfare state. I'm sure you have much more apt geographic ideas than I do. Work is not valued in Wahabbist Islam, or in the Qutbist movement that spawned Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Terrorists of the GWOT.

I certainly think it is relevant and important that there are religiously legitimate (as well as I can tell, or many Muslims for that matter) Muslim doctrines that are specifically intended to undermine the security, finances, and freedom of non-Muslim states, and it is compulsory for observant Muslims living in those states to work to undermine them. Moderate Muslims who do not want to live under a theocracy are in a sticky situation. If they oppose the Qutbists and other Jihadists they can be accused of apostasy, which can be a death sentence, as well as being attacked by non-Muslim advocates of multiculturalism and political correctness for their "inauthentic" version of Islam. This dynamic currently leads to more extremism, not less.

Anyhow, I've linked to this article back at my place. Thanks for letting me know about it.

Anonymous said...

I have a friend from California who was a Christian missionary to a certain place. It was extremely Muslim, and she could only safely share her faith at the place she taught English to Muslim women. It was dangerous for her to walk down the street without Hijab, and the women who converted to Christianity faced beatings or even being killed (Sharia law for those who convert to another religion out of Islam). The former Muslim women said local police just looked the other way when this happened. My friend was a missionary in DEARBORN, MICHIGAN, a suburb of Detroit, where Islamic prayers are broadcast in public five times per day. In Canada a young woman was killed for not wearing Muslim enough clothing by her own father. Sharia is being tolerated in both Canada and the U.S. If you think it isn't happening in North America, think again!


God is great Islam is the truth... treat Muslims equally and you will have no problems

Purpleslog said...

Interesting. Thanks for posting it.

Anonymous said...

"By no means are all Muslims involved in terrorism. Muslims in Eastern Europe have traditionally been conservative in their beliefs and not aggressive in their actions. Muslim migrants in Western Europe; however, have a higher tendency to be radicalized."Catholicgauze

This assertion is completely incorrect.Yugoslavia was destroyed by the radicalization of Islam in the Balkans. Terrorism came in the form of vicious civil war.The terrorist acts/atrocities committed by Muslims collaborating with the Nazis in WWII against the Christian Serbs were well documented.

Catholicgauze said...

But was the violence by Bosniaks done because they were Muslims or did they just so happen to be Muslims. Yes, there were foreign Wahhabi fighters but these were a small minority. The Christian Serbs and Croats also committed plenty of violence during the Balkan Wars.