I agree. The "convert factor" is prettly slim. The ease of accessing the US by foreign jihadists through gaping holes on the border is far more real.

The other category are the true believers, those who find in Islam whatever they wanted and failed to get from Catholicism in a spiritual -- and, possibly, political -- sense. If jihadists are to arise, it will be from this group, but I believe that this group as a whole will be an insignificant minority to begin with, and the radicals (read "terrorists-to-be") will be an even smaller number.

This seems to be the same segment of the population who would be taken up by, say, communism, or zapatista style populism, or whatever other -ism comes down the pipe.

Of course, the frustrating thing from a theological perspective is that there's the whole civic religion aspect of this. A community will not only be converted to islam, but then everyone who is born will be born into islam. This is not unique to islam, necessarily, but just as an example, I know of a man in let's say the near middle east who converted from Islam to Christianity and now has a bounty on his head from his own family! This is not islamofascism in the sense of wanting to take on the outsiders, but definitely a dangerous thing for freedom of thought and religious expression.

Would that happen in Mexico? I don't know. It's something to think about.

This is not islamofascism in the sense of wanting to take on the outsiders, but definitely a dangerous thing for freedom of thought and religious expression.

Bryan, you don't see much of that sort of thing happening in the US, even though there are large pockets of Muslims in various places. Sure, I suspect there's other kinds of harrassment and discrimination going on...families disowning children, that sort of thing...but nothing of the violent nature that you describe. That's because the larger community won't stand for it.

It appears that in Mexico, there is no "larger community." So, yeah, it's easy to come up with a scenario like you describe. Whether it would last for generations is subject to debate.

I might not have agreed with Mark's solutions, but his assessment of the terrorist threat Muslims pose is spot on.

It isn't just "Mexican" Muslims (as opposed to "Black" Muslims or the Middle Eastern variety). It's Islam itself.

You're entirely right about the "convert of convenience", what used to be called "rice Christians". They're in it for the benefits. I'm not sure how much benefits rural, poverty-level Mesicans receive from Muslim missionaries.

My concern are the genuine converts. It seems Islam is exceptionally adept at taking any inequity or oppression against a given population and blaming it on the existing, non-Muslim government. As Bryan astutely pointed out, Communism used the same basic technique. But communism is an entirely intellectual political philosophy which, rejecting religion, is sterile. Islam integrates politics with the spiritual qualities of a highly structured religious system. That's a powerful combination.

Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the number of fanatic jihadists Islam can produce in a population where it takes hold. We're talking about a religion that can take thirteen year old children with everything to live for and turn them into machines willing to destroy themselves and anyone around them.

But even if many Muslims aren't willing to "go all the way", they can certainly sypathize, shelter, and support those who do, much in the way the the "civilian" population aided the Maquis in the French Resistance.

Eric you've asked a very good question about jihadists, "Why does it naturally follow that they'll choose the US as their target?" There's a number of reasons. First, jihadists are fanatics who do whatever their favorite religious leaders tell them. A fanatic doesn't ask the sort of rational questions you and I might. He doesn't ask his mullah or Imam, "how is blowing up a US plane going to do to truly change things here in Mexico?" He just does it. The second reason is, he already knows why. Everything is America's fault.

Islam is a global religion with a global objective: forcing the world to submit to Islam. It's also a militant religion and sees all non-Muslim nations as enemies to be subdued. The US is the largest and strongest enemy nation best-equipped to stop them. Muslim religious leaders understand it isn't going to be Mexico that's going to stop their expansionism. In terms of global power, Mexico isn't that important. Whenever there's a major crisis, world leaders don't suddenly wonder "How will Mexico react to this? What does Vincente Fox think of this?"

Muslim religious leaders know only too well who the real enemy is and they'll hurl their fanatics against it, regardless of the local situation in Mexico. Middle Eastern Muslim fanatics never seem to worry about the poverty or inequality in their own countries when they're attacking America, why should Mexican Muslim fanatics be any different?

You're right, though, about American Muslims generally eschewing violence against non-muslims. True, the larger community in America wouldn't stand for it but also because there isn't as much of a need for it here, either. Many of the major Muslim communities exist in very leftist-leaning states which favor a "multicultural" approach. There isn't any need for violence when local officials immediately capitulate the moment some Muslim group starts whining about their religious rights (even when they impinge on the rights of others). Muslims don't need to resort to violence when they can pervert the freedoms and methods of change inherent in our own system.

Spain was itself Muslim before the Renaissance. Interesting that Spanish descendents in the New World might again become Muslim.