Understanding Islamophobia in Europe

 

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا سيدي يا رسول الله

Understanding the European Reaction to Islam

The European encounter with the world of faith and monotheism began with the conquests of Alexander the Macedon, known as the Hellenistic period.

Under Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” religious persecution reached heights of insanity. The Temple in Jerusalem, which was dedicated solely to the worship of God, was forced to become a shrine to the pagan Greek deity Zeus, where an image of the latter was erected. The Temple was further defiled with the sacrifice of a pig and the sprinkling of its blood on the Altar.

Antiochus IV issued other decrees against the Jews, coercing them to eat pork, work on the Sabbath, cease the circumcision of their sons, and, worst of all, to participate in the worship of the pagan Greek (false) deities. Antiochus IV saw himself as “Epiphanes” or “God manifest”. This truly evil man is regarded as the foreshadowing or archetype of the coming Antichrist.

His abominable actions eventually led to the Maccabean Revolt which succeeded in liberating the land of Judea from Greek Seleucid rule.

There are many parallels between the abominations of Antiochus IV in the land of Judea and contemporary religious suppression and persecution of the Muslims. We have learned of reports from Communist China of how the Muslim Uighurs are force fed pork, that too in the sacred month of Ramadan, how Muslim ladies are prevented from observing veil, the men forced to shave their beards, the demolition of many Mosques and the “Sinicization” of others. A similar situation prevails in parts of Central Asia, in the former Soviet Republics.

But a most worrying trend is Europe’s trajectory toward this kind of outright ban on the practice of fundamental aspects of Islam and the broader suppression of Islamic religiosity. The European allergy to Islam can be understood in its historical conflict with the ancient Jews, beginning in the Hellenistic period. The same sentiments of ancient European civilizations like the Greeks and Romans for devotion to images of false gods, pork, wine, sexual immorality, nudity, and being uncircumcised continues to animate the modern European and explains his hostility to Islam and Muslims today.

The present rise of the “Far Right” in European society and politics is primarily a reaction to the increased presence and visibility of Muslims and our conservative religiosity in Europe. The European Far Right represents only the more extreme sentiments of Islamophobia and xenophobia which are in fact shared to a lesser extent by even those White Europeans who are regarded as “progressive”, “liberal” or otherwise on the Left of the political spectrum. The Far Right pushes for greater restrictions on the presence and practice of Islam in Europe. They seek to outlaw the Hijab in particular, since it represents modesty, purity and a rejection of nudism which European culture celebrates. The Far Right likewise seeks to proscribe other fundamental Islamic practices like the ritual hand slaughtering of animals for Halal food and infant male circumcision.

Tacitus, an ancient Roman historian, wrote the following about the Jews which is incredibly insightful for understanding modern European Islamophobia: “They abstain from swine’s flesh, in consideration of what they suffered when they were infected by the leprosy to which this animal is liable. By their frequent fasts they still bear witness to the long hunger of former days, and the Jewish bread, made without leaven, is retained as a memorial of their hurried seizure of corn. We are told that the rest of the seventh day was adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils; after a while the charm of indolence beguiled them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction. This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs, which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children, and brethren. Still they provide for the increase of their numbers. It is a crime among them to kill any newly-born infant. They hold that the souls of all who perish in battle or by the hands of the executioner are immortal. Hence a passion for propagating their race and a contempt for death. They are wont to bury rather than to burn their dead, following in this the Egyptian custom; they bestow the same care on the dead, and they hold the same belief about the lower world. Quite different is their faith about things divine. The Egyptians worship many animals and images of monstrous form; the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials. They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay. They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honor to our Emperors.” (The Histories, Book V)

The selectivity of Tacitus in mentioning certain things about the Jews for criticism reveals the ancient European mentality that persists today. Out of all the Jewish dietary restrictions he mentions only pork, as pork, till this day, is beloved to the European and an integral part of their diet. Any culture or religious community that eschews pork is immediately alien and even worthy of ridicule for the European. The European knows deep down that the pig is a filthy animal and hence why it is considered profane for both Jews and Muslims. Antiochus IV deliberately chose the pig as his animal of choice to have sacrificed at the Temple in Jerusalem, undoubtedly deriving glee from the knowledge that it would hurt and provoke the religious sentiments of the Jews. We see a disturbing parallel today in the sadistic hate crimes perpetrated against Muslims in the West in the common form of leaving a severed pig’s head at the entrance of a Mosque.

Next, Tacitus mentions “frequent fasts” and today fasting is predominantly associated with Muslims rather than any other religion in the world because of the communal fast of Ramadan. Fasting is now totally an alien concept to the European who has abandoned every trace of spirituality and acts entirely for material benefit only. The collective fast of Muslims for an entire month annually is therefore hard to ignore for those Europeans who are in close proximity to Muslims. For the European it is an uncomfortable reminder of the different philosophies and lifestyles of the two.

Tacitus perceived the institution of rest on the Sabbath as springing from the alleged indolent nature of the Jews. The European considers himself a hard worker in contrast to other cultures, especially those that are found in warmer climates whom he regards as lethargic. The so-called Protestant work ethic is considered a critical factor in how Western civilization achieved material ascendancy. Figures in the Far Right often point to Muslim presence in Europe as an economic burden. They accuse Muslims of parasitic behavior, notably, living off of social welfare benefits while not actively seeking employment. The fundamental Islamic practice of offering Salah five times daily, along with fasting in Ramadan and taking time off on Friday afternoons to attend the weekly worship service at the Mosque (peak hours of labor for Europe), are simply incompatible with the European lifestyle and culture that emphasizes work over worship.

Tacitus goes on to talk about the Jewish tendency toward separation or apartness from non-Jews, manifested in practices such as dining separately. Muslims in Europe are perceived by the native European the same way. The tendency toward ghettoization and resistance to integration with the broader society are points of criticism toward Muslims that unites both the Right and the Left. Some European countries, especially in Scandinavia, are actively instituting policies that coerce assimilation of Muslims. These policies are particularly directed toward children and the youth. While those of the Far Right in Europe want the physical exclusion of Muslims, by means of their deportation and barring further entry of migrants to the continent, those on the Left seek to aggressively assimilate Muslims into European culture through insidious means, among which are the encouraging of intermarriage, something Islam forbids.

Tacitus said that circumcision is a rite intended to distinguish and therefore cement apartness. In this he was certainly correct. While in the European political arena infant circumcision is condemned as a violation of the right to “bodily integrity”, the European aversion to circumcision stems from the fact that it represents yet another notion of spiritual purification and holiness. There is an element of envy that the European and other uncircumcised cultures have toward religious practices whose purpose is to distinguish and set apart or make holy. Circumcision is one of those practices, but so is the practice of female veiling, abstaining from pork and intoxicants, eating only Halal food, fasting, ablution, avoiding contact with dogs, etc. Several European countries have attempted to ban infant circumcision, and may yet succeed in doing so in the near future.

Tacitus mentions the iconoclasm and lack of patriotism among the Jews in conjunction with each other. Indeed, both of these phenomena are deeply associated with Muslims and currently are major points of criticism toward Islam not only in the West but throughout the world, especially India. The Islamic rejection of idolatry and iconography, the visual depiction of the Divine in an animate form, is a stark contrast to the European heritage in the Arts. On the other hand, the establishment of Mosques, with their distinctive minarets and architecture, transforming radically the European landscape, is considered a monument to foreign conquest and domination. Tacitus expressed the same anxiety with regard to Jews multiplying their numbers. Anxiety about Muslims, who generally have higher fertility rates and are therefore growing in population exponentially, has replaced that which the Europeans once had about Jews. It is from this anxiety where we now hear terms like the “Great Replacement”. The anxiety over a radical demographic shift is therefore the main motivation for the Far Right’s opposition to immigration.

The admitted lack of patriotism among Muslims toward their host countries, which stems from Islam’s teaching of universal brotherhood of Believers and loyalty to God above the loyalty to any state or government, is of particular concern to the European, for whom nationalism or patriotism is quite literally a religion.

Apart from Tacitus, another individual who expressed in writing the answer to the mystery of European anxiety and hostility toward the Jew was Hitler. The predominant narrative in explanation of European antisemitism is that it is primarily a racial anxiety. To admit that Hitler’s antisemitism was in fact sparked by his observance of a stark cultural difference between Jews and Germans would force contemporary Europeans to re-evaluate their criticism of Islam and Muslims. That, of course, is something very inconvenient and uncomfortable for the European who has deluded himself into thinking that antisemitism is wrong because it is a form of racism, whereas Islamophobia is perfectly fine because it is a negative reaction to the cultural differences of Muslims that is devoid of any racial component.

Hitler was not born an antisemite but became one in his formative years living in Vienna. He himself has explained what initiated his journey in the direction of hatred for Jews: “Once, as I was strolling through the Inner City, I suddenly encountered an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought. For, to be sure, they had not looked like that in Linz. I observed the man furtively and cautiously, but the longer I stared at this foreign face, scrutinizing feature for feature, the more my first question assumed a new form: Is this a German? As always in such cases, I now began to try to relieve my doubts by books. For a few hellers I bought the first antiSemitic pamphlets of my life. Unfortunately, they all proceeded from the supposition that in principle the reader knew or even understood the Jewish question to a certain degree. Besides, the tone for the most part was such that doubts again arose in me, due in part to the dull and amazingly unscientific arguments favoring the thesis. I relapsed for weeks at a time, once even for months. The whole thing seemed to me so monstrous, the accusations so boundless, that, tormented by the fear of doing injustice, I again became anxious and uncertain. Yet I could no longer very well doubt that the objects of my study were not Germans of a special religion, but a people in themselves; for since I had begun to concern myself with this question and to take cognizance of the Jews, Vienna appeared to me in a different light than before. Wherever I went, I began to see Jews, and the more I saw, the more sharply they became distinguished in my eyes from the rest of humanity. Particularly the Inner City and the districts north of the Danube Canal swarmed with a people which even outwardly had lost all resemblance to Germans.” (Mein Kampf, Fairborne Publishing)

In this anecdote, what first brought the Jews to Hitler’s attention was their foreign appearance. Not necessarily a difference in racial facial features but in dress and style as Hitler begins his description of a Jew’s clothes and hairstyle, namely, the black caftan and hair locks. Ironically, today’s European is relatively more socially at ease with someone who is the most distant to him racially, the Black African. Despite the stark racial difference the cultural gap between the two is narrower, they may even likely share the same religion, although in the case of the European he is today only nominally Christian. But when it comes to the Muslim, the European is uncomfortable in his presence especially if the Muslim is visibly religious. A Muslim lady in a black burqa with a niqab or a Muslim man with a full beard and wearing a skullcap and thobe will probably elicit the same reaction in the mind of a native European that Hitler had when he first saw a visibly Orthodox Jew all those years ago in Vienna. For Hitler, the Jew of Vienna in his raw form, unlike the assimilated Jew of Linz, made him question whether the Jew could truly be German.

After the defeat of Germany in the Second World War, Europeans, particularly Germans, were shamed because of the Holocaust and antisemitism quickly became shunned. For many decades the Far Right was politically dead, only able to operate on the margins or underground. However, with the recent appearance of Muslims through mass immigration the Far Right in Europe has been able to resurrect itself in finding a new target. Whether it is antisemitism or Islamophobia, the psychology behind either hatred and anxiety is essentially the same. But the Far Right in Europe makes common cause with Zionism in order to slickly repudiate any charge that it is simply re-manifesting the old antisemitism of the 20^th century and repackaging the narrative this time to target another foreign community. The Far Right narrative has also been repackaged to justify its Islamophobia by apparently championing the cause of feminism and arguing that Islam is a threat to the rights of both women and homosexuals. So we see today that Jews, women, and homosexuals are increasingly in the ranks of the Far Right in Europe, however ironic that may be, as they all perceive Islam as a threat to their interests, a perception the European Far Right has masterfully exploited.