Islamophobia creates the very
monster it fears
By Mafoot Simon
THE clock was ticking close to 11pm but American scholar John L.
Esposito was still fielding questions at a public forum in
Singapore - and this after a long day of talks and meetings
elsewhere. The founder of the Centre for Muslim-Christian
Understanding in Georgetown University, Washington, is seen by many
as a champion of Islam. But a member of the audience accused him of
being an Orientalist - used as a derogatory term for a Western
scholar who studies and distorts Islam.
Most Muslims in the west are like other people - they want
prosperity, freedom, a place to raise their family. So why see
their demographic increase as a threat, asks Prof Esposito. --
BERITA HARIAN
This was swiftly debunked by someone else in the audience, who
commended him for what he had done for the Muslim world. Professor
Esposito's voice cracked when he thanked his backer, and ignored
his accuser. That was in 1997.
Four years later, in 2001, Prof Esposito was the butt of criticism
in a book by another American academic, Dr Martin Kramer. The book,
Ivory Towers On Sand: The Failure Of Middle Eastern Studies In
America, asserted that Prof Esposito gave wrong advice to the
Clinton administration by underplaying the danger of Osama bin
Laden and Islamic fundamentalism.
When the Brooklyn-born Roman Catholic was in Singapore last week,
we asked him about what he has described as Islamophobia in
Europe.
Talk about the Islamisation of Europe - that Europe will become
part of the Arab West or the Maghreb - is growing. Historians
Francis Fukuyama and Bernard Lewis are among the most prominent
doomsayers. What's your view on this development?
These doomsayers are wrong in their approach. They regrettably wind
up contributing to this post-9/11 hysteria about Muslims.
We ought to be concerned about extremists, but we also need to
distinguish extremism from mainstream Islam. If we're not careful,
we in Europe and America will end up seeing the significant
presence of Muslims in our countries as somehow a threat or a
potential threat.
In America, we have elements of the Christian right, what I call
the militant Christian right. In some ways, they are like the
right-wing nationalists in Europe in terms of their attitude
towards others, and particularly Muslims.
The radical nationalists in many ways are 'anti-foreigners', and
Muslims get put in that category, even those Muslims who have lived
there for a long time. This is something that many of us need to
speak out about and counter.
Their worry is that the Muslim population in Europe is increasing
faster than the non-Muslim population. One estimate is that there
are already more than 23 million Muslims in Europe.
Why should that be an issue? If you're talking about the growth of
extremists, whoever they are, that's one thing. But why should the
growth of a religion like Islam, with a growth of Muslim
population, become an issue?
The majority of Muslims in America and in Europe are like other
people in terms of what they want - economic prosperity, freedom, a
place to raise their family. Muslims make significant contributions
as professionals and workers, the same as other ethnic and
religious groups do. So why see their demographic increase as
necessarily a threat?
The fear is that it'll turn Europe into a Muslim ghetto.This
argument is coming from people who are right-wing - who are not
just anti-foreign, but in many ways anti-Muslim. It's Islamophobia.
If - this is an important point - you were to write about the
Jewish, for example, and substitute the word Judaism for Islam and
Jews for Muslims, and you were to write the same kinds of pieces
that these people write, use all the rest of the words, you would
be accused of anti-Semitism. You couldn't do it. So why is it okay
to write about Muslims that way?
There's also a fear that anti-Semitism in Europe may be
increasing.
Some people try to equate anti-Semitism with the demographic
increase of Muslims. But anti-Semitism in Europe existed long
before Muslims came to Europe. Think of World War II and Hitler in
Germany. In America, anti-Semitism has existed for a long
time.
At the end of the day, people who make these arguments have their
own agenda. They are concerned that if you have a large Muslim
population, it might become an influential political lobby.
Isn't that a reality?
Well, why shouldn't that be the case? In the United States, if you
have a significant Italian or Greek or Turkish or Indian
population, they then obviously influence politics. It's normal.
The American Jewish community is also a significant influence on
American elections and a major influence on America's policy
towards Israel.
So what's wrong with Muslims having influence? There is nothing
wrong in principle.
If we espouse in America and Europe things like citizenship rights
and the duties and freedoms that come with it - such as freedom of
speech, self-determination and human rights - then Muslims should
have the same dignity, the same status and respect.
When people deny these rights to Muslims, they are in fact feeding
the notion that Islam equates with extremism.
If they are concerned about the growth of extremism, they have to
address the causes of extremism - and the causes are both foreign
policy issues as well as domestic issues.
That's what Muslim European scholar Tariq Ramadan tried to do, and
he got into a problem in Europe. Now the US has denied him a visa
to teach there.
That's the irony. American and European authorities want to hear
the moderate Muslims, but they also fear the moderate Muslim
voice.
Look at the problems that Professor Ramadan got into in France. He
criticised some of the intellectuals saying that their support for
America's invasion of Iraq was not based on universal values, but
because they were of Jewish background. It was their Israeli
sympathies, he said, that led them to see the invasion of Iraq as
good for Israel.
Now, one can disagree with Prof Ramadan on that, but he had a right
to say what he believed. If a non-Muslim had said it, would he have
been accused of being anti-Semitic? Probably not.
It's not just Muslims who come under fire when they criticise the
Iraq invasion. In the US, for example, members of Congress, members
in academia, intellectuals like myself - we will all be accused of
being unpatriotic or even anti-Semitic.
Among Muslims, it's not just Prof Ramadan bearing the brunt. Look
at what just happened to Mr Yusuf Islam (the former singer Cat
Stevens who was deported to Britain by the US last week). What does
that deportation say? What message is it sending to the Muslim
world? Muslims must be asking themselves: Is there any Muslim who's
'acceptable'?
They said he's on a watch-list and that he gives money to 'groups
that might potentially support terrorists'. They weren't even
saying that he gives money to groups that support terrorists.
That means that anybody who gives money to a Muslim charity is
going to worry. 'Well, wait a minute, if I give money to the Muslim
charity and they're not supporting terrorists right now, will
somebody in the American government say, 'Yes, but potentially they
might support terrorists in the future'?' I think that this raises
issues.
You are saying that they are sidelining the very moderate Muslims
they want to work with?
Exactly. The danger is that they play right into the hands of
radicals because what radicals will say in this situation is, 'See,
they say one thing with their mouth, but they don't really mean
it.' And so what radicals will say to moderates is: 'It doesn't
matter whether you are moderate or not, these people are really
anti-Islam. Well, this isn't a war against global terrorism, it's a
war against Islam and the Muslim world.'
That lends credence to the talk about the clash of
civilisations.
Absolutely right. Regrettably, it can contribute to a clash of
civilisations.
It gives opportunity to the extremists to say to the moderates:
'Look, this is the way they really are. They say they don't believe
in a clash of civilisations, they say they distinguish between
Islam and extremists, but don't just look at what they say, look at
what they do: who they arrest and why, who they refuse visas to and
why. Doesn't it look like they're equating extremism with simply
being critical of American foreign policy?'
If you're critical of American foreign policy, does that make you
anti-American?
