The poverty of polls: a response to 'Fears of an Islamic revolt in Europe begin to fade'

The pernicious effect of the poll is evident in Burke/Traynor's analysis- or lack of analysis. Once they have got their teeth into a good poll they lose interest in actually arguing their point. They present no real reason why the 'Islamic', although it would be better to say 'Islamist', threat which still, unbelievably, makes certain things unsayable through the threat of mob violence- is no longer a threat.  The poll says that it is therefore it is so- the evidence is merely incidental. The poll has a ballooning effect on their writing- the Gallup Coexist Index 2009, singular, becomes 'Polls, for example, have found that Muslim communities are profoundly influenced by their countries of residence. So in France, where 45% of people said in a survey that adultery is morally acceptable, so did a high proportion of local Muslims. In Germany, where 73% of the population is opposed to capital punishment, the view was shared by exactly the same percentage of local Muslims.' They try to conceal this inflation through the odd tactic of slightly misquoting the percentages, in fact the French are marginally more promiscuous than Burke/Traynor give them credit for: 46% favour adultery, but all their data does come from the one source. To their credit they do try to balance these inflations with other curious omissions. For example the idea that Muslim sensibilities reflect those of the general population is somewhat at odds with the UK data which 'shows' that 0% of Muslims, to use the language of polls for a moment, find homosexual acts morally acceptable compared with 58% of the general population. Another would be the mysterious process through which the Gallup Coexist Index becomes the more respectable, 'new poll by Gallup'. The reason for this? Perhaps that 'Coexist' is an organization which exists entirely to 'help people of these faiths improve their relations - above all with each other, but also with different faiths, and with those of no faith.' Now this is a noble thing to try and do but a clearly partisan lobby group should not be mixed up in producing 'non-partisan, data-driven research and advice' (1)- even if it is well intentioned it will not be helpful. Also an idea as to the kind of integration they have in mind is suggested by their decision to quote a member of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organization which has radical Islamists amongst its subscribers, as the spokesman for the Muslims: despite the fact that only 6% of Muslims, to quote a poll that I approve of, feel the MCB represents them.

The article is not all bad- its intentions are undoubtedly positive: anyone who doesn't welcome the idea that Muslims are more integrated, more tolerant and more peaceful than is generally imagined should be held slightly suspect.  If its effect is to marginalize the hysterical Eurabianists and proponents of the clash of civilization worldview then it will have done a good. But the objective of the poll and the article seem to be to achieve this through acquiescence with untruths. Another use to which this data has been put is seen in the murky depths of the Comment is Free section of the Guardian website in the column of Selina Zahra Janmohamed; who seems to have been chosen more for her picture than her prose. She sees the new revelation in the following way, 'The message is this: we should use this report to silence those who spread hate once and for all. We need to move on from the monochromatic discussions of loyalty being either to the state or to religion'. The almost palpable fear in this declaration is indicative of a wider problem that has infected the discourse on this subject. It has never been a conversation between the 'Muslim Community', whatever that is, and Europe- it has always been a conversation conducted over the heads of the Muslims who are our fellow citizens and fellow humans- one which seeks to recruit them into the game of identity politics and then re-deploy them to support a viewpoint. The viewpoint itself is immaterial; all that is necessary to claim the support of the community is that you are a member. Take Janomohamed's claim, on another blog, that 'Muslims hold Muhammad, Aisha and other religious figures very close to their hearts, dearer to them than their own parents.' I would prefer to think better of Muslims than that and I'm sure I could find a poll to back me up...

Even as the Burke/Traynor article fails to offer any analysis it does correctly identify the main thrust of the Eurabianst critique of Islamic integration which focus on 'three elements: the terrorist threat posed by radical Muslim European populations; a cultural "invasion" due to a failure of integration; and demographic "swamping" by Muslim communities with high fertility rates.' There is a disquieting obsession with demography, birth rates and the like in the Eurabianist analysis. Not only is this inaccurate and coercive but it concedes the main point to the Islamists: that all Muslims think like them. Just like the polls they present themselves as a kind of science and thus brook no criticism. The number of factors effecting the size of the Muslim population are so many and so complex that to come to a conclusion 'You would almost have to make it up,' according to Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. However the dismissal of this viewpoint is not a refutation of the idea that Islamism poses a threat to the future of secular values.

Articles, such as these, that paint the whole issue of Islamic integration as a peripheral conflict between rabid neo-cons and fringe terrorists do us a disservice as they blind us to the real problem. Terrorist atrocities are not the real threat which Islamism poses to those precious freedoms which we enjoy, and it does currently pose a threat: primarily to the Muslim women trapped in forced marriages or the victims of 'honour violence' or to children abandoned in faith schools to the poison of Saudi sponsored Wahabist propaganda: the vulnerable members of society whose opinions are subsumed by the language of community. This is a problem that cannot and should not be solved through the methods advanced by Eurabianists: prevention of immigration from the 'Muslim world' (often the people who need our help most) deportation for Muslims who break the law (BNP anyone?), citizenship tests (which many non-Muslims would fail) and the restoration of Judeo-Christian values (a particularly odd construction since European Christians have spent most of their time massacring Jews). Even otherwise intelligent writers like Melanie Phillips, who recognize the Islamist threat, buy into the most flagrant nonsense when they begin to view the world through this prism. For example her claim that, 'A liberal, tolerant society -- which is what Britain once was -- welcomes and respects minorities within the overarching framework of British values' is flat out fantasy. While multiculturalism may have been the wrong approach it was an attempt to tackle the very real problem of ferocious racism, sexism and homophobia all of which were rampant in post war Britain. A flavour of this atmosphere is gained from a Conservative party election slogan from Smethwick in 1964: 'If you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour'- we have, at least, moved away from that. The false antithesis between Judeo-Christian and Muslim values fails to recognize a point made by Christopher Caldwell: 'What secular Europeans call Islam is a set of values that Dante and Erasmus would recognize as theirs.' A fact recognized by the growing cooperation between conservative Christian and Islamic groups over issues like abortion, homosexuality and drugs. 

All analysis that plays this number game ignores the fact that it is ideas not demography that are the true driving force of history. Regardless of the number of Muslims who hold that homosexuality is immoral we have no need to worry about the future of Europe until the Imams are able to tell us why God has also created homosexual animals in dozens of species- creatures supposedly incapable of free will and thus sin. The real problem is, as Kenan Malik has argued, 'the lack of conviction in a progressive, secular, humanist project.' If we believe what we say that we believe: namely that Secular, Humanist values are the best in the world then we have no need to fear Muslim immigration- Muslims will recognize the essential truth of those values. However in order for this to happen we must do more to increase integration and combat Islamist aggression: abolish multicultural practices, ignore 'community leaders', close faith schools and protect our freedoms, most importantly freedom of speech, at all costs and at all hazards.