This is a difficult one… Positioning oneself politically is extremely limiting in terms of pushing forward this debate. As the author suggests, the progressive pole finds it difficult to approach this problem in a useful manner, there are no new solutions suggested and the ones already on the table have lost (some of) their credibility and have been overtaken by a very fast changing and amplifying problem. Taking part in this debate one runs the risk of either further fragmenting and undermining the progressive, liberal pole or/and to align oneself with the far right. So the alternative is to keep quiet.

The other difficulty is that the proposition outlined in the article – a secular, liberal, egalitarian approach, with religion relegated to a private sphere etc. – remains a valid theoretical offer, but one that fails to find a way to be put into practice. Unfortunately, nobody’s track record (whether we look at any country on Europe or the US) of providing a liberal integration model can be called successful. It now seems that alternative is a war.

Offering this alternative, whether one agrees with it or not, is rather disheartening. It indicates that we have run out of other options. If one looks at a whole range of evidence (the horrors in the Middle East, the enregimentation of more or and more Muslims (individuals as well as states) into a homogenous piousness inspired by Wahabism, the slide from piousness towards fundamentalism, the failure of states with Muslim majorities to modernise and develop etc.), the immediate reaction is that of fear followed by a willingness to put up the defences and accept the premise of a war, even if it is accepted only as rhetorical or discourse device. However, stepping aside from the emotional reaction, I would suggest two questions to the author: first, how are we going to fight this war? (concretely, what do we need to do, besides taking part the actual wars in the Middle East?); and second, how can anyone from the progressive liberal centre or left be convinced to accept this premise as long as it is set out on the terms appropriated by the far right?