Islamists persuade Muslims not to assimilate in the West by creating Islamophobia with terrorist atrocities. By Grégoire Canlorbe at The Gatestone Institute.

One of the great successes of Islamist movements appears to have been to convince much of the third generation of Muslim families to break with assimilation.

Many of that generation were beginning to become more integrated than their parents or grandparents. They had begun to adopt some codes of European societies: freedom of individuals, freedom of movement, separation between religion and politics, sometimes even emotional and sexual freedom. You could see young Muslim women dating Christians, atheists, or non-Muslims.

For a number of years, though, you can see a retreat, particularly during conversations on “Islamophobia.” Islamists, often with the support — or complacency — of many on the “left,” have managed to instill in many Muslims a mentality of mistrust, sometimes verging on paranoia, leading them to believe that they are surrounded by enemies — that the non-Muslim society is fundamentally hostile to them, and that they must therefore not join it.

In what turned out to be a bestseller in France, The Strategy of Intimidation, I explained that by launching barbaric jihadist attacks — such as Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, London, Madrid, Barcelona, Brussels, Berlin, or the July 14 Nice attacks — radical Islamists in fact aim to induce hostility toward Muslims and provoke a clash between Muslims and non-Muslims, to motivate Muslims to separate from their non-Muslim environment and de-assimilate.

This strategy has been most effective. Islamic terrorism produces criticism of Islamism. The Islamists then say that the criticism is proof that they are victims of Islamophobia. Young people who were assimilated, or at least interested, are encouraged to withdraw voluntarily into an isolated Islamic community. This community then functions as a counter-society against Western society, which is perceived as harmful, decadent, “Islamophobic,” or “racist.” In this framework, withdrawal — whether it involves a veil, marrying only within one’s religion, Muslim clothing excluded by non-Muslims from everyday life, or abstention from some democratic activities — is then presented as a condition of survival in the face of a small minority community supposedly being oppressed by a large majority.

There is now a discourse in these Muslim communities that suggests it might be best if they separated themselves from the rest of society. The separation is being presented as a demand for protection, a right to difference, or even a right to reparations in the face of the supposedly “racist” attitude of Western society.

The discourse presents Western society as diabolically secular, anti-religious, perverse, Islamophobic, and, of course, Zionist. In this narrative, Christians are often described as the accomplices of Jews or Zionists — a view that further reinforces the hostility toward the host society and the wish to separate from it.

Violence by a few determined fanatics has kept Islam from evolving for 1400 years. It continues, but our left and ruling class have no idea. They still think Muslim immigrants will assimilate and become culturally white — while keeping their own cuisine and quaint dress sense, of course.