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?