For long time i asked myself, the question what next. Western world but mainly Europe has reached a crossroad where it has to decide between two choices. The first and easy choice is to continue as if nothing happened, until the next time.
But it has to be remembered the conflict between the fundamental Islam and the western values is deepening and the Muslim activists have chosen the road of escalating the conflict. If the September 11, by itself a very sophisticated attack was orchestrated by activists known to the western governments. President Clinton had authorized the CIA to bring bin Laden to the United States after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa, it is not so anymore. Those who organized the attack in Paris are practically unknown.
The phenomena of suicide attackers brought to the conflict a variable of completely different dimension. Not because it is much more effective than the usual approach of commando attacks of hit and run, but because of its psychological dimension. It is hard to understand the ideological and practical motives of these mass murderers, and that’s what these Islamic suicide attackers are, since they have to be indifferent to what kind of world will remain after their attack. What’s obvious, they have no limits as to the level of destruction and number of casualties they aim to inflict by their acts. In contrary if given to them a chance, they would blow up a whole city and better a big city like Paris or New York, to make a big show out of their “heroism”. It can be said, that it was a fortune they didn’t succeed to penetrate to the football stadium with tenth of thousands of spectators. You may remember the incident at 1985, when some Liverpool fans attacked the Juventus fans with beer cans and resulted death of 39 spectators. It is hard to imagine what would happen, if the attackers were successful. Probably the number of casualties would be counted by thousands. And exactly this was the aim of the Attackers.
To those who believe in humanistic approaches i would like to say, this conflict between the western, post WWII, modern way of life and the fundamental Islam is not going to disappear by itself. It seems according to the results of free elections in the Arab countries like Egypt (not the last elections), Libya and Tunis, the fundamental Islam is deeply rooted in the hearts of majority of the Arab world population. The idea of “whole world”, Muslim Caliphate has probably many supporters in these countries.
If you wonder what kind of life are we offered under the regime of Muslim Caliphate, all is needed is to look at the life in Saudi Arabia, but without the riches of oil there. This is the situation in most of the Arab countries, with no democracy, no civil rights, no freedom of expression, no social communities without the interference of the religious or regime authorities, no modern economy, no government run social institutions helping the old, sick, invalids, etc. Add to it the inter-gender moral codes of the Islam, the limitation it imposes on artistic expressions. I highly recommend to watch the prayers and religious interpretations TV shows in Saudi television and you can see, what a gloomy, miserable life without colors and diversity the Islam caliphate supporters have in mind. (Music and satire is forbidden).
The other way the Western intellectuals have is to check the Muslim faith with intellectual honesty and with openness to any conclusion. There is definitely a direct connection between religious fanaticism and their deeds.
To explain that every religion has in itself positive massage and commands enforcing humanistic approaches is self delusive. The basic principle of every monotheistic faith, if sincerely followed, is accepting authority of ancient scripts, and the authority of those who claim to represent the divinity, or claim knowledge about the divine and interpret these scripts. Only this principle makes the follower of religious faith a person who limits the spectrum of his own thinking within a religious code framework. What’s worse, such a believer automatically wants to limit the spectrum of thinking of all the others. This self imposed limitation on the thought, and the will to force upon ALL the others this limited framework of thinking, is the basis of the ideological conflict between the modern world and the religious, mainly Islamic world (due to its relative success to sustain its ideological influence as contrary to Christianity).
It is understandable that the basic tool for scientific method is openness to any kind of critique. Without it the modern science could not develop science and technologies, that enable and give chance to a sustainable life to 7 billion people on the earth. The alternative way of abounding this way of thinking, as demanded by the Islam and other monotheistic religions is not an alternative, unless the human population would reduce itself to numbers that existed in the pre modern times. This process is happening already in the failed Arab and African countries, from where the people are “exported” to the functioning European countries. But the act of emigration and abandonment of homeland is not accompanied by change of mind of the emigrants. Only few of them understand that their personal tragedies were self inflicted upon them. Most of them would rather continue their previous way of life and religious faith, believing that this time it will work. But as explained above, it can’t work. From the emigrants, who stick to their traditional values, will come the next generation of youth, who will feel natural in their new homeland, and believe that their family’s moral code and belief system is the right and valid one. Out of them will be some individual forerunners, who will become the Muslim activists, ready to sacrifice everything to bring back to the world the life, their parents abounded in desperation a generation before.