Johann Hari, writing in The New Republic, offers an amusing (and slightly disturbing) travelogue on the National Review cruise. Some highlights:
I am standing waist-deep in the Pacific Ocean, indulging in the polite chit-chat beloved by vacationing Americans. A sweet elderly lady from Los Angeles is sitting on the rocks nearby, telling me dreamily about her son. “Is he your only child?” I ask. “Yes,” she answers. “Do you have a child back in England?” she asks me. No, I say. Her face darkens. “You’d better start,” she says. “The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they’ll have the whole of Europe.”
I am getting used to such moments, when holiday geniality bleeds into–well, I’m not sure exactly what. I am traveling on a bright-white cruise ship with two restaurants, five bars, and 500 readers of National Review. Here, the Iraq war has been “an amazing success.” Global warming is not happening. Europe is becoming a new Caliphate. And I have nowhere to run.
And:
The table nods solemnly before marching onward to Topic A: the billion-strong swarm of Muslims who are poised to take over the world. The idea that Europe is being “taken over” is the unifying theme of this cruise. Some people go on singles’ cruises, some on ballroom-dancing cruises. This is the Muslims Are Coming cruise. Everyone thinks it. Everyone knows it. And the man most responsible for this insight is sitting only a few tables down: Mark Steyn. He is wearing sunglasses on top of his head and a bright shirt. Steyn’s thesis in his new book, America Alone, is simple: The “European races”–i.e., white people–”are too self-absorbed to breed,” but the Muslims are multiplying quickly. The inevitable result will be “large-scale evacuation operations circa 2015″ as Europe is ceded to Al Qaeda and “Greater France remorselessly evolve[s] into Greater Bosnia.” He offers a light smearing of dubious demographic figures–he needs to turn 20 million European Muslims into more than 150 million in nine years, which is a lot of humping–to “prove” his case.
But facts, figures, and doubt are not on the itinerary of this cruise. With one or two exceptions, the passengers discuss “the Muslims” as a homogenous, sharia-seeking block–already with near-total control of Europe. Over the week, I am asked nine times–I counted–when I am fleeing Europe’s encroaching Muslim population for the safety of the United States.
At one of the seminars, a panelist says anti-Americanism comes from both directions in a grasping pincer movement–”The Muslims condemn us for being decadent; the Europeans condemn us for not being decadent enough.” Midge Decter, Norman Podhoretz’s wife, yells, “The Muslims are right, the Europeans are wrong!” And, instantly, Jay Nordlinger, National Review’s managing editor and the panel’s chair, says, “I’m afraid a lot of the Europeans are Muslim, Midge.” The audience cheers. Somebody shouts, “You tell ‘em, Jay!”
15 comments ↓
This sinister Nazi mentality is becoming more widespread. It’s also an Israeli paranoia: the Palestinians are multiplying, soon we’ll be swamped, what can we do, etc.
Sadly, people will think whatever they’re told to.
Zanjabil,
Concerning the racist implications of women in the National Review arcticle, you said:
But this mentality is not new nor is it isolated to a particular part of Europe of the Americas. This kind of racist mentality preceded Nazism and it did not originate in Germany, although it did find one of its ugliest expressions there.
Salam, Abdul Hakim!
Hatred of Muslims is being deliberately and artificially stoked by the US and UK governments. There is a campaign to vilify Islam and the Muslims. New words are creeping into the English language: “Islamist”, “Jihadist”, government members talk of Muslims “grooming” terrorists, as if they were paedophiles… This is new.
But Islamophobia is old — as old as Islam itself. And Nazism is old. Mussolini took his inspiration from the Roman Empire. He even borrowed the word “fascism” from the ancient Romans.
Indeed this new wave of Nazism is not confined to the West. Hatred of Muslims is widespread and deep-rooted in Russia, too. I’ve heard Russians describe Arab women as “incubators for terrorists”.
Subhan Allah. Allah knows best. They are smart, but Allah is the smarter.
What’s wrong or offensive about the word “Islamist”, defined as “supporter of Shari’ah law”?
As for Russia, the Orthodox Christian world in general has a rabid hatred of Islam (think of the Bosnian genocide) because they seek to avenge the Ottoman conquests in the Balkans.
George,
How is someone who supports “Shari’ah law” an “Islamist”? It’s invoked to describe terrorists.
Amal,
as-salaamu ‘alaikum, you said concerning the word Islamist,
Perhaps that is true, however it is a corrupted use of the English language because the suffix “ist” in English dentoes a person and their belief. Thus an Islam-ist is one who believes in Islam. This is the proper context.
However, when someone uses Islamist to equate a “terrorist”. It is safe to say that they are either ignorant or are generalizing that ALL Muslims are effectively “terrorists” because of their belief.
Muslims these days are describing certain fellow brothers and sisters not as “Muslims” but as “Islamists”. And the word is used in a derogatory sense. This is sad indeed. It may be the case that some members of the Ummah are misguided today. They follow the letter of the Law but overlook its Essence. But they are not “Islamists”: they are Muslims. Misguided, but sincere.
At a time when 250,000 Chechens have been slaughtered; when 650,000 Iraqis have been murdered; when Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq have been trashed for generations to come by radioactive uranium weapons, Muslim unity is more important than ever.
When the blessed Prophet (saws) corrected a brother, he did so with gentleness in his heart. His is the noble example we should aspire to.
Wa’alaykum assalam Abdul-Hakim,
I’m not sure what the etymology of the word ‘Islamist’ is (although I don’t think Daniel Pipes invented it as many attribute), and certainly, the “-ist” likens it to the other “-isms” of the day (Communism, feminism, etc).
But I have never ever seen it used in anything but a derogatory sense. Perhaps it has a meaningful definition, and this is a discussion in itself, but in even the more respected broadsheets, “Islamism” and “Islamist” is never used to describe a belief or a believer (respectively) in Islam. It’s used to describe, for example, members of Hamas, Hizbollah or simply anyone considered “extreme”. Granted, it might indicate a desire to implement Shari’ah Law, but not, I believe, in essence.
Zanjabil,
You said,
I think what is being done here is that for the sake of clarity, many people in the media define Muslims who look to implement an Islamic government or political parties that advocate the application of sharia.
Because, surprisingly, there are a number of Muslims who do not want sharia and instead would like a secular government. Whether that number is large or small is unknown to me but I do know that they exist.
Ya Haqq!
I hope that was not referred to me. If so I’m a bit confused
Amal,
I believe in sharia I also believe that it can effectivley govern Muslims in various politcal systems. For example, I think sharia can be appropriately developed for a monarch, republic and/or democracy, that is my opinion and I believe that.
Therefore, I am deemed an Islamist by Daniel Pipes and the like. And I have been called this as well, but when I was called an Islamist it was said/written more like a dirty word, so I do know what you are saying.
Thanks for the insight, Abdul Hakim. It’s actually very interesting, and I’d be curious to give these terms a thorough study and treatment to investigate their usage.
I honestly never gave the definition of “Islamism” and its offspring “Islamist” any consideration in the “Shari’ah-believing” sense because currently the meanings are so distorted and negative .
Here is Baybers’ definition:
I think the word “Islamist” meaning “supporter of Shari’ah law” is too useful to abandon on account of its misuse by bigots*. I’d also use the word “pan-Islamist” to describe groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir who desire the political unification of the Islamic world.
On the other had, the term “Islamofascist” used by neocons is clearly a meaningless epithet, as the only truly fascistic ideology in the Arab world was the National-Secularism of Nasser, Assad and Saddam Hussein.
I’d also refer to extreme exclusivist terrorists (like Al-Qaeda In Iraq) as “Neo-Kharijites” or “Takfiris”.
*I’ve seen some Zionists call secular Palestinian militants (like Fatah or PFLP) “Islamists”, for example!
There are 2 reasons why there is an inevitable overlap between Islamophobia and racism:
1. Racism was discredited in the West by the Nazi Holocaust, so racists can appear more “respectable” by playing the anti-Islam card.
2. Islam is more tenacious than any other religion in ideology, so can only be removed from a given area by using the methods of racists (ethnic cleansing and/or genocide).
Salam. It was a plea for Muslim unity and courtesy, not directed at any particular person. A simple reminder to us all that we would do well to remember the beautiful example of the Prophet (saws) more often. That’s all.
Leave a Comment