Winds of Change.NET: Europe, Radical Islam & Secularism

April 28, 2005

Europe, Radical Islam & Secularism

by Joe Katzman at April 28, 2005 5:24 AM

Transatlantic Intelligencer put me on to a really good interview The Aspen Institute Berlin did with Irshad Manji, Gilles Kepel, and Steven Emerson about Islam in Europe. Canadian "Muslim Refusenik" Irshad Manji had some especially interesting things to say - not just about Islam, but about Europe and secularism:

2. How widespread is Muslim extremism in European Muslim communities and mosques?

(Manji): It mostly depends on how you define extremism. If you mean "literalism," then it is more than widespread - it is mainstream. If you mean the overt preaching of violence, then it percolates on the margins. The key here is to recognize that because literalism is mainstream in Islam today, the thin minority of Muslims who have any intention of engaging in terror are nonetheless protected by the vast majority of moderate Muslims who don't know how to debate and dissent with that proclivity.

Let me explain why.

We Muslims, even in the West, are routinely raised to believe that because the Koran comes after the Torah and the Bible (historically and chronologically), it is the final and therefore perfect manifesto of God's will. The Koran, we are taught, does not lend itself to the inconsistencies and ambiguities and outright contradictions and, God forbid, human editing like those earlier scriptures. Mainstream Muslims believe, as an article of faith, that the Koran is not like any other scripture. It is the summit of the holy books. This is a supremacy complex, which even moderate Muslims share. And this supremacy complex is dangerous because when abuse happens under the banner of Islam, most Muslims do not yet know how to debate, dissent, revise or reform. That's because we have not yet been introduced to the possibility, let alone the virtue, of asking questions about our holy book. The same cannot be said today for �moderate� Christians and Jews.

In that sense, I subscribe to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's point that "Islamic terrorism, both in the Netherlands and abroad, is able to thrive because it is embedded in a wider circle of fellow Muslims." This is a reality that most Western security experts have yet to grasp.

3. Why is it so difficult for many Muslims and their communities to speak out clearly and decisively against extremism and fundamentalism within their own ranks?

(Manji): One reason I referred to in my answer to the previous question: because most Muslims have never been given the permission to interpret the Koran freely, they feel it is not their place to denounce those who "know better." Islamist terrorists are expert in quoting the Koran for their purposes. To question them, it is widely felt, is to question the Koran itself, and that is off-limits.

A second reason is the sheer fear of persecution from fellow Muslims, even in open societies such as Western Europe and North America. Let me illustrate. Despite the anger, venom and death threats I receive for having written a book called "The Trouble with Islam," I′m much more surprised by the support, affection and even love I hear from fellow Muslims. But most of the Muslims who write to me in support, or who whisper "thank-you" in my ear after a public event, tell me that they can′t be public about that support. Nor do they feel that they can be vocal about their own struggles with the faith today. That′s because they fear "persecution." I have engaged enough of the people who use this word to report that they mean more than ostracism. They mean physical reprisal against themselves and their families. The challenge is to give reform-minded Muslims the confidence to say what needs to be said.

Armed Liberal referred to the "time of the decent people." This is what we're talking about. And increasingly, as the USA and others continue to show steel and backbone, it's beginning to give them enough confidence to say the things that need to be said. We've a ways to go, but I am seeing positive signs.

This next bit really grabbed me, though, as it was a response I didn't expect from a liberal Muslim gay activist:

4. What are the main differences between Muslim communities in Europe and those in the United States?

(Manji): For starters, ethnic make-up. In most of Western Europe, a majority of the Muslims are Arab. (Germany, with its huge Turkish population, is an obvious exception.) In North America, most Muslims to this day are of non-Arab extraction - African-American, Pakistani, Indian, Iranian, Turkish, etc. That's important to note because the more rigid strains of Islam tend to be found in the Arab world, where cultural traditions such as honor seep into the practice of Islam to calcify the faith. By contrast, in non-Arab parts of the world, Islam has historically been more flexible, allowing a greater role for women, for example. In the last 15-20 years, even the tolerant strains of Islam have struggled to survive under the onslaught of Saudi money and influence. Still, this difference in ethnicity is part of the reason that American Muslims are more willing to integrate than European Muslims are.

So far, so normal. Now the kicker:

"But that's not the whole story. Part two of the tale has to do with how faith is treated in Western Europe versus North America. I alluded to this difference in my answer to the first question. Let me now go further. To a lot of Europeans, still steeped in a backlash against the Catholic Church's intellectual repression, religion is an irrational force. So women who wear the hijab set off bells of suspicion as well as of contempt. That is much less the case in North America. Because North America has long been a society of settlers ready to receive those who flee their homelands for religious tolerance, religion is not viewed as irrational even if what some people do with it might be, as in the case of terror. Which means Muslims in North America enjoy more fluid choices. Unlike European Muslims, North American Muslims tend not to be judged by what we wear. We tend to be judged by what we do - or don't do, such as speak out against Islamist violence. This difference influences Muslim communities on each continent.

Wow. The next point was also great, as it goes right to the heart of the North American Experiment's genius - that anybody can become "a somebody":

Finally, through countless conversations with Muslims in Europe and North America, I get the sense that they are affected by the way in which each continent treats the question of "status." Given their hunger to achieve, Americans are disposed to jostling with the "other," and they expect the "other" to jostle right back. What makes someone a real American is not so much his skin color as his willingness to compete. In Western Europe, by contrast, heredity, hierarchy and entitlement trump achievement as guiding aspirations. No wonder so many Muslim laborers who have been living in Europe for two or three generations continue to be referred to as immigrants, even when they are bona fide citizens. This difference feeds into the perception that Muslim communities have about whether they can ever be good enough for their host societies. And that, in turn, can only influence how hard - or not - they try to integrate.

Absolutely. One more reason why the North American Experiment matters so much to the world - and why we mess with its foundations at our peril.

Lots more great stuff from Ms. Manji, and from Mssrs. Emerson and Kepler as well. Give the whole thing a read.

UPDATE: The left-leaning blog Gothamimage has an alternately insightful (re: America) and disturbing (re: Europe) article called Rumble in Europe, 2019. He does not see a happy ending, but: "We may be wrong, and if we are, we'll admit it. Check back in twenty years, or less."

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/4488

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Europe, Radical Islam & Secularism"

Comments

#1 from na at 4:53 am on Apr 28, 2005

'If you mean the overt preaching' ya sure do.

#2 from marie at 8:11 am on Apr 28, 2005

I'm not so sure the US won't have its own problems pretty soon with immigrants. Check out this classy billboard.

#3 from Ruth at 10:38 am on Apr 28, 2005

Very compelling viewpoint. Also, as you cited from Gothamimage:
"In America, the Muslim man can be a American man. In Europe, in European eyes, the Moslem Thee will never be Thou, only It. Nationalism still exists.

The Muslims know it and the hatred is mutual. It can be heard in all the great cities, away from where tourists walk, and spend."

This is a situation which has the potential for a lot of violence before the Muslim population outside the middle east takes responsibility for the perception it's encountering. The extremists have their own agenda, and it has nothing to do with peaceful coexistence.

To its credit, the US muslim population is conducting its own public demonstration against the terrorists May 14 (in DC) and it looks like that is a growing movement toward rejecting its worst elements.

#4 from amalia at 1:42 pm on Apr 28, 2005

As a welcome wind of change, you should refresh us early and often. You write so clearly even an Israeli such as I got much of the message. One day the Prophet Mohammed awakened with a cat fast asleep on his sleeve. Rather than disturbing the animal, the Prophet cut off the sleeve and let the critter sleep. Many self-styled Jewish and Christian pundits could learn that God looks favorably upon human beings including Mohammed who are kind to animals. Maybe they should stage a non-violent demonstration similar to the 14 May rally planned by Muslims.

#5 from Michael at 3:20 pm on Apr 28, 2005

The Phrophet Mohammed did that?

When I was growing up it was the Emperor of China.

Either there are a lot of cat lovers in high places out there or somebody is making stuff up. I suspect the latter.

Having said a cynical thing, let me say that the article and link were very interesting.

I have always been of the opinion that the true genius of the United States is that ANYONE can become an "American". All you have to do is want to be and to say I am an American and that is pretty much it. It dosen't make no never mind where you are from, what you believe, or what you look like. People accept you as an American without hesitation.

No one can EVER become French or German or Canadian or Mexican or anything else. You can live in those countries but you can never be one of them. (I must admit I am not sure if this holds true for Australia, although I suspect the best you could hope for is acceptance and inclusion as a Yank, which is still better than an ex-patriot)

I really think that makes all the difference in the world.

#6 from BooPear at 4:02 pm on Apr 28, 2005

Uhhh, Michael,

I can't speak for the rest of the nations listed, but let's not lump Canada into the "no one can ever become one" class, if you don't mind. Don't forget, we're an immigrant society too. I know lots of muslims and chinese, to name a couple, who have done just fine integrating and becoming as Canadian as maple syrup.

-Boo

#7 from praktike at 4:10 pm on Apr 28, 2005

Very interesting, Joe, thanks. I may have to read her book. I do think the fact that Muslims have a hard time gaining acceptance in Europe is a huge problem, and Manji's discussion of it is on point.

#8 from John B at 5:14 pm on Apr 28, 2005

Michael:

Re: "No one can EVER become French or German or Canadian or Mexican or anything else"

Nice satire - I assume you aren't serious.

From the CIA factbook (Ethnicity):

Canada: British Isles origin 28%, French origin 23%, other European 15%, Amerindian 2%, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab 6%, mixed background 26%

U.S. white 77.1%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1.5%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.3%, other 4% (2000).
note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean a person of Latin American descent (including persons of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin) living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.)

Looks like Canada is at least as ethnically diverse as the U.S. Living in Toronto, which will become majority non-caucason with the next 5 years, I can attest that you are completely wrong.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

#9 from Gunter Haas at 6:10 pm on Apr 28, 2005

Having lived in both the US and Canada I can attest that John B is completely wrong. Canada is lily white compared with the US. Toronto is an outlier which does not alter the comparison. Travel a short way outside of Toronto for a more valid sampling.

If one understands the tortured language of ethnic breakdown in population statistics, it is easy to understand the confusion that people like John B exhibit. But if one has actually lived and travelled in the two countries, there is no such room for confusion. Of course Canada is a tiny country compared to the US, population-wise, and is far more easily and quickly altered.

Given enough time under the present immigration laws and differences in birthrates in various population groups, and more of Canada will start to experience the demographic phenomena of states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida.

The relatively complex and orderly systems of governance and commerce in nations descended from Anglo rules of law, are liable to break down if sufficient numbers of citizens are unable or unwilling to voluntarily live within their confines.

#10 from David M. McClory at 7:22 pm on Apr 28, 2005

Manji knows very little about Islam, and does not wish it well.

As far as "interpreting the Qur'an" she is in an insignificant minority.

Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the direct speech of God. For those who want to shelve Islam or force it through a Reformation, they want to disccredit the Qur'an.

Muslims will not allow celebrities to hijack their religion.

The discussion needs to depart from the impossible task of reforming Islam, and stick to the doable task of improving the poitical and social behaviour of Islam's firmest adherents.

Muslims see the Emerson and Manji as hostile. They are not the solution.

#11 from Mark Buehner at 7:39 pm on Apr 28, 2005

Fundamentalist Christians dont see the Bible as the direct word of God?

#12 from David M. McClory at 8:20 pm on Apr 28, 2005

Sorry Mark, for not being specific enough.

Two things:

1) Muslims believe that Muhammad remembered and rehearsed the bits of revelation as they came, sharing them as soon as possible with his associates. I think that the vast majority of Christians believe that humans wrote the Books of the Bible---under Divine Inspiration. It might be possible to do something with the human writing that one could not with the direct speech(as reported).

2) The Qur'an is to Muslims what the saving death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ is to Christians. It cannot be reduced any further.

That is why Muslims will not accept denigration of their Holy Book. Admittedly, there is some overreaction to honest attempts to discuss the matter.

Steve Emerson should focus on actual terrorists and their networks (as he often does). Irshad Manji should look into Islam and try to tease out a viable level of tolerance. For instance did not the 2nd Khalifah, 'Umar unpopularly fire a very impressive and succesful commander becuase he had harmed civilians in the Levant? (I forget the commander's name! sorry again).

#13 from PD Shaw at 8:24 pm on Apr 28, 2005

Christian fundamentalist believe that the Bible was created by humans inspired by God and that the Bible is without error.

Most Muslims believe that the Koran was uncreated, existing outside of time.

Patrick

#14 from Michael at 9:34 pm on Apr 28, 2005

John

I respond without malice as I do not wish to start an argument or disrespect you. Nor will I respond further.

I know that legally you can become a naturalized citizen of Mexico or France.

However, please move to France or Mexico and then proclaim yourself to be Mexican or a Frenchman to the locals.

Let me know how it works out.

#15 from AMac at 10:10 pm on Apr 28, 2005

David McClory (8:20pm),

On inerrancy and divine revalation of scriptural text, you make interesting points. After reading the interview, I think that Irsad Manji would be in basic agreement with you, as to the facts you both describe.

Overall, "the Muslim world's" difficulty in reconciling scriptural inerrancy with the circumstances of the material world does have parallels with the conflicts that wracked Christianity before, during, and after the Reformation.

> That is why Muslims will not accept denigration of their Holy Book. Admittedly, there is some overreaction to honest attempts to discuss the matter.

"Honest" needs annotation in this context. As one who does not adhere to scriptural inerrancy, I honestly don't believe in the validity of the world-view of Muslims, or Christians (etc.), who hold such views.

In discussions, I try to be respectful, and polite. I can try not to denigrate anyone's Holy Books. But to the extent that any dissent on this point may seem denigratory in the eye of the beholder, it becomes very hard to reconcile the sentiment you express with my desire for frank and open exchanges of ideas with others.

It's important to note that many (most?) Muslims may well agree with your point of view, as you formulated it.

#16 from Glen Wishard at 10:57 pm on Apr 28, 2005

David McClory: For those who want to shelve Islam or force it through a Reformation, they want to disccredit the Qur'an. Muslims will not allow celebrities to hijack their religion.

Well, celebrities must be the only people on earth who are not allowed to hijack Islam. Plenty of other people have done it: The Nazis, the Ba'athist Nationalist-Fascists, Palestinian Marxists, despots, revolutionaries, and an endless list of violent militant and terrorist organizations ending with Al Qaeda.

Objections to this subordination of Islam have been few and far between - partly because of the climate of fear described by Manji, partly because of the indifference and distaste of the non-Muslim world that Gothamimage described well, and partly because too many Muslim leaders have abdicated their intellectual and moral responsibilities.

This fundamentalism has produced a tyranny of self-appointed scholars, which is very different from the Protestant Christian fundamentalism that exists in democratic societies. In Christian fundamentalism (apart from cults) the individual is considered the sole guardian of his own soul. The individual claims the right to be his own interpeter of scripture and his own theologian, and he does not have to belong to any particular denomination or follow any particular religious leader.

Maybe most important - and this was an American religious innovation - Protestant churches in America are entirely governed by their congregations, and the cleric is an employee who can be dispensed with if he is judged to be scripturally unsound. He cannot demand that they pay tithes, appear before a clerical court, or order anybody to go on a Jihad.

So the problem with Islam is not such much its fundamentalism as its anti-democratic clericalism - a main reason why Europeans fear it so much.

#17 from Colt at 11:05 pm on Apr 28, 2005

Two drinks, rather than than the previous six, is now the number of drinks a liberal European male needs to consume before he will tell you how much he hates many of the foreigners who are taking over his country and dreaming of Sharia law.

I can vouch for the truth in that.

#18 from Joe A at 10:02 am on Apr 29, 2005

Marie (#2) may be right. Please, take into account that in Europe many muslims can take their cars and drive on holidays to their former country, which is only around 1000 miles away.

From June 15th to September 15th last year nearly 3 million people and 700,000 vehicles were ferried across the Gibraltar Strait, and many more departed from other harbors such as Malaga, Alicante and Marseille towards Morocco and Algeria. Other arab countries are within reach using low cost flights.

Therefore I think that it cannot be directly compared muslim assimilation in the U.S and Europe. From this point of view, as Marie says, it is closer to Mexican inmigration.

There are at least two other problems:

As Manji says, European national cultures hinder integration. European countries had to develop a powerful national identity to survive during centuries and avoid being absorbed by their neighbours, the culture is a part of it. On the other hand America created one that can be common to people with many different backgrounds.

See also that European countries that had colonies mostly populated by Europeans have today more open cultures and that there were always migration movements inside each nation, important if regional ones differ, and now inside the EU; that is, some of these cultures are evolving, incidentally in a quite interesting way.

Finally, the Economy. Stagnated economy, low wages and welfare state don't foster integration. On the other hand America bribes its inmigrants with a prosperous and vibrant economy. I've heard Hispanic inmigrants in Europe complaining that in America their cousins are the owners of their own house.

#19 from A_native_european at 11:00 am on Apr 29, 2005

No problem: 100 more years and all of the europeans will be muslims or latin-american (see birth rate)

#20 from waronjihad at 12:29 pm on Apr 29, 2005

Ladies like Hirsi Ali and Manji tell us that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

We are doing a similar job at:

http://www.waronjihad.org

#21 from Mark Buehner at 2:20 pm on Apr 29, 2005

Reminder: Demographics rates are not static.

#22 from Joe A at 9:05 pm on Apr 29, 2005

No problem: 100 more years and all of the europeans will be muslims or latin-american (see birth rate)

I don't know, but I think it will be pretty different from what is today.

(I hope Socialism will be swept away, seeing Wolfang Clemens, Germany Economy Minister, saying that his country will grow 1% this year and being proud of it is just pathetic)

#23 from jinnderella at 12:19 am on Apr 30, 2005

In one of our discussions of "eurabia" at gnxp, Aziz had this to say--

An interesting tangent on perceptions of victimization seems to be developing. Is the political leverage of a given group correlated with their persecution complex?

SInce I don't buy the argument that Jews have influence over US foreign policy, I don't see the relevance to the Eurabia issue. But even if somehow muslims in europe were to spontaneously accreete into a monoculture and then had a fertility rate of I dunno, a hundred children per female or something, sustained over a few decades, then yeah, Eurabia zindabad.

persecution - and perceived persecution - is the single greatest impetus towards political activity. that impulse plays out is goin to be largely determined by the way muslims are treated in eurpe as a whole from now onwards (and the actions of the fanatic fringe are a feedback mechanism on this in complex ways).

If perceived persecution increases, even a very small minority of sufficiently motivated political muslims could indeed exert tremendous influence over policy. Will it happen? How can anyone say?
Aziz | Email | Homepage | 01.18.05 - 12:15 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i think Aziz has an important point about the perception of persecution as being a strong motivator-- i remember an SDB essay where he talks about the culture of victimhood in arabs -- does anyone else remember that?

#24 from a at 5:23 am on May 01, 2005

#14

counter example is Charles Aznavour

France is one of the easier countries to become a real citizen.

#16

But if the church splits and your brother chooses the other side than he should be ostracize at all costs.

Maybe most important - and this was an American religious innovation - Protestant churches in America are entirely governed by their congregations, and the cleric is an employee who can be dispensed with if he is judged to be scripturally unsound. He cannot demand that they pay tithes, appear before a clerical court, or order anybody to go on a Jihad.

Are you sure that this is an American innovation because this way of governing protestant churches is a lot older than the United States.

So the problem with Islam is not such much its fundamentalism as its anti-democratic clericalism - a main reason why Europeans fear it so much.

The fundamentalist mosques are ruled in the same way as protestant churches are so it is definitely the fundamentalist bend they have that is the problem. The only reason why the christian fundamentalist are accepted is because they won't increase their power

#18

_European countries had to develop a powerful national identity to survive during centuries and avoid being absorbed by their neighbours, the culture is a part of it. _

Most European nations are not centuries old. Germany, Italy & Belgium for example didn't exist 200 years ago. And countries that did have serious fissures through them, see for example Switserland & Spain.

#25 from Gotham Image at 10:12 am on May 04, 2005

Thanks for posting "Rumble In Europe." Great site you have. Much to concur, much to dissent to on it.

In my blog I mentioned that Europe is now getting it's Game Face on- take a look at The New Republic Etc. blog and see the story about left-wing secularist Habermas, discuss his common views with Pope Benedict. That is just a reflection of new realities and European sensibility being strirred.

#26 from att at 12:15 am on May 12, 2005

Dumbest shit I have ever heard regarding Canada. Canada is way more multicultural and accepting of immigrants than the US.

#27 from Shariq Faraz at 9:38 am on Sep 15, 2005

Irshad Manji's woes against Islam are not surprising given the school of thought she identifies with, and which is perfectly fine. The trouble with this female version of Rushdie's writing is that she does not have literary competence to make an intelligent commentary on either contemporary or historical Islam. What Manji fails to observe is that Islam more fits the definition of way of life rather than a religion, which clearly states that there is no compulsion to believe in the system as a principle dogma. If anyone finds the theology of Islam i.e. hell, heaven, angels and judgment day as something to laugh about neither Islam nor any knowledgeable Muslim would have an issue with it. But the trouble with people like Manji is they want to get media attention and at times like in case of Satanic Verses naive Muslims do fall into the trap, giving desired coverage to people of her breed. I reckon Manji would qualify as a refusinik for not only Islam but also for Christianity and Judaism given that she is self declared lesbian, she surely would find something to deny in context of current debatable situation of the church on homosexuality. True that Quran came after Torah and Bible and is taken as the final word of God, but when Manji states that the earlier books i.e. Torah and Injeel were open for literary edit from the believers unlike Quaran, I wonder if she has ever read the Quran in the first place! A good portion of the Quran blames the earlier clergies of manipulating the verses of Torah and Bible hence the very raison d'etre for Quran to be sent to humanity was to correct the earlier manipulations. When she says Muslims today are suffering from literalism rather than extremism, she should read the history of Islam, where scholars have spent their lives in understanding Quran and deriving not only beneficial information about the social codes of society but scientific knowledge too, hence to feel Muslim are taking a textual path rather than a meaningful approach of their scared book is simply naive*

#28 from Home Office at 9:17 pm on Feb 16, 2007

The French Muslim population is the largest in western Europe. About 70% have their heritage in former north African colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. France favours integration and many Muslims are citizens. Nevertheless, the growth of the community has challenged the French ideal of strict separation of religion and public life. There has been criticism that Muslims face high unemployment and often live in poor suburbs.