In their own countries Muslims do what they want and that’s OK, even if it does not comply with neither the letter nor the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular concerning women, or ethnic and religious minorities. No one is obliged to go and to stay in these countries.

In western countries it is not evident that Islamic radicalization is a movement with a social background. Rather, it looks like that it is a political cause,  a struggle for power, which is made by fundamentalist escalation, leading to extreme abuses. These are mostly the work of isolated individuals or very small groups, often involving young people with no apparent problems or stigma, so-called “immigrants of second or third generation”. These newly converted believers or “born again” Muslims tend to take more radical and “pure” stances than traditional believers; and skillful strategists know how to channel these energies so that nuisance can be maximized, especially in the confused and terrorisable society that ours became. Let’s remember though that all these converts do not fall into violence, but a few hyperactive ones are sufficient to frighten our societies. Also, all is relative and, apart from the political use made of it – and despite of the innocent victims and of the fleeting emotion that surges at every incident- Western societies in general have shown themselves fairly resilient against those attacks.

To cope with the challenges posed by these harmful phenomena it is useless to assign a collective guilt to ourselves: of not knowing how to integrate these aliens, of being too tolerant for the establishment of quasi-tribal communities, or to have naively marveled at the virtues of multiculturalism. This would give good excuses to do nothing, or it would be a ground to make the wrong answers. Neither is it useful to blame immigration: economic development is highly dependent of migration fluxes; and immigrants are not the cause of these problems which are fortunately quite anecdotal. Rare events don’t generate mass phenomena.

What is needed is firstly to recognize that the phenomenon of radicalization has always existed and will still exist in the future, and to resign ourselves to suffer the inevitable corollary, a portion of violence that from time to time may hurt us, spectacular and barbarians albeit isolated acts. Of course this is an impossible posture for proactive politicians seeking election; yet crime exists and society has never been able to eliminate it fully. So, we had to learn “make do” with it. If terrorism would be well structured and organized, fighting it would be easier; but it isn’t. It is far from the Komintern of the 20’s to the 5o’s, with fifth columns, going along companions, and concerted revolutionary actions that contributed to the Cold War. The Stooges who recently made Toulouse, Boston and London would have been readily identified and neutralized if they had been part of structured organizations.  Furthermore, in states where the rule of law prevails no one can be locked on a vague suspicion, even if a risk was identified. The 9/11 attacks were the deeds of a small group, causing a major impact on the US psyche although using financially modest means and no sophisticated techniques.

It is the job of the police to track down the criminal masterminds and their followers, and of justice to punish them for their acts. It is not a war because there are no fronts or organized troops; therefore, there is no way to give a generalized “license to kill” to sheriffs of all kinds. The exceptions laws (Patriot Act) that have been passed in the United States and the lawless confinement of “illegal combatants” at Guantánamo are pure scandals; and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have contributed nothing to resolve any problem, on the contrary.

What is now required is to fundamentally rethink and rebuild what in our society has been systematically deconstructed in recent decades, especially in the schools of industrialized countries. By teaching only recent history one erases all cultural references; by reducing philosophy to tabloid psychology thought is being prohibited, by magnifying spontaneity expertise is belittled, and by making higher education accessible to all reduces sensibly its value (and by the way those who cannot access it are thrown into oblivion), by communicating only with sentences of less than 140 characters the few remaining thoughts are reduced to slogans. Even as reading, writing and arithmetic are not mastered by all children who leave compulsory education how can we prevent these empty heads to be a very fertile ground into which any ideology can be instilled, would it be a jihadist or a “total security” one? One may even think that during the baby boom a strategy was in place to promote ignorance in order to gain power over the young generations, similar to the Chinese Cultural Revolution (which was rather a cultural abolition). If it was the case it must be recognized that it has been extremely successful; thanks to you intellectuals and pedagogues!

Of course we should not start again with the so-called values ​​of ancient times, they too castrated too much and they cost too many wars. There is no need for moral rearmament but everyone should get at an early age the ability to analyze ideas and arguments with a critical sense, to realize that nothing is simple, to consider alternatives, and not to associate to a tribe without knowing all of its aspects, light and dark. As information and knowledge has never been so accessible it is necessary to learn sorting things out. Such skills will then allow everyone to feel strong, capable of judgment and respect, to be less prone to atmospheric changes. This humanistic effort is worth promoting: somehow as a modern jihad! Are our teachers and journalists prepared for this? and willing?

Let’s complicate things and give them nuances rather than reducing them into definitive categories. Simplistic ideologies will be more difficult to pass, with no regrets.