Counter arguments?

Submitted by nae (Canada), Oct 1, 2006 at 21:15

You don't really offer any counter arguments here. Rather, you just point to a paragraph as if to say ‘look how ignorant this is.'

Warner and Wenner's main argument is that Islam is not institutionalized at the national level in European states due to internal doctrinal and ethnic divisions. Do you agree with that? I can't really tell.

The authors go on to suggest that the lack of a unified voice will marginalize Muslim political demands in European states. If you don't agree then offer a more plausible scenario. A few possibilities:

1. Muslim's may not be institutionalized nationally, but the can still effectively mobilize around key symbolic issues (foreign policy, blasphemy, etc).
2. Muslim demands are primarily local (schooling, separate swimming) and they are able to successfully overcome diversity and organize at this level of government
3. The Muslim population has a latent political influence on policy-makers in European states ("if we don't approve this Mosque construction plan then our Muslim population will turn to violence").

The authors took you seriously enough to quote you (not much engagement with your arguments, but you're still there). Maybe you should take them seriously enough to offer a substantive critique of their work.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".