Steyn's Islamophobia

Some readers thought I was being too hard on Mark Steyn, who may have just been typing sloppily when he fretted yesterday about "resurgent Islam, freelance nuclearization, and the demographic decline of the west," making no distinction between Islam as such and violent jihadist ideologies. It was, however, no mistake. Here's Gideon Rachman on Steyn's book:

Mr Steyn argues that – “Europe has all but succumbed to the dull opiate of multiculturalism.” Indeed “a fearless Muslim advance has penetrated far deeper into Europe than Abd al-Rahman” – a Muslim general who made it to the outskirts of Paris in 732. With apparent relish Mr Steyn predicts a “Eurabian civil war”. The weak-kneed elites will succumb to militant Islam. But an “unreconstructed minority” will turn to “neo-nationalist strongmen”. The poor old Europeans can’t win. It’s either appeasement or fascism.

Here, again, the "enemy" is being defined very broadly; Europe simply has too many Muslims living in it. Their immigration constitutes a "fearless Muslim advance."

Comments

Rather than just nibbling around the margins, Steyn ought to come up with some kind of final solution to the Muslim question.

Otherwise, how will Western civilization be saved?

Posted by Petey | May 24, 2007 7:51 AM

As Sartre said in Anti-Semite and Jew, the anti-semite needs the Jew for his own identification.

-----

Also, you didn't quote the best line from Rachman's piece:

This is vintage Steyn - jeering, complacent and utterly stupid.

Posted by Petey | May 24, 2007 7:58 AM

Not that I'm for any 'final solution' for the Muslims, and not that I know what's supposed to be so 'fearless' about their 'advance', but their demographic ascendancy does suggest some problems for European liberal/secular democracies. Islamic societies have never really embraced the idea of separation of mosque and state - or if they have, the idea is no longer in vogue. Are Steyn bashers implying they don't have a problem with that?

Posted by Bill | May 24, 2007 8:18 AM

Y'know, I spent last night tossing and turning in my bed, regretting that I'd excused Steyn's use of "Islamic" in that context to sloppy phrasing.

To clarify/offer contrition/cover my ass: My point was that singling out that particular phrase as a "smoking gun" is not a very persuasive argument against Steyn's worldview (which I agree is paranoid and unrealistic.)

Posted by James Gary | May 24, 2007 8:28 AM

"Islamic societies have never really embraced the idea of separation of mosque and state - or if they have, the idea is no longer in vogue."

Some people think Islam can exist within the context of a liberal democracy, and a loud-but-vocal-minority think it can't possibly do so.

After we reach a reasonable compromise on this one, maybe we can talk about the Israel/Palestine situation and then discuss whether abortion should be legal.

Posted by James Gary | May 24, 2007 8:36 AM

Even if you regard Islam as essentially incompatible with free societies, the slaughter required to end it as a force in the world would change America beyond recognition. That doesn't mean that, a few years down the line, if some kooks with nukes obliterate, say, Marseilles or Lyons that the French wouldn't give it a go in some fairly spectacular way. But they're unlikely to accomplish much by it, any more than the Russians have by their scorched earth strategy in Chechnya.

Steyn wishes it could happen, but says the Euros just aren't up to it. Because, you know, 4% of the population is THAT powerful. There goes that "complacent" part.

Bill - Making labor policies more flexible, better education, less racism and discrimination would help. In France, half of all immigrant couples are racially mixed and 25% of Frenchwomen of Algerian descent marry non-Muslims. Compare vs. our own stats for Mexican-Americans.

Note that all this screeching is for a minority group in Western Europe that is about the size of our Asian-American minority in the U.S. (let's not even include the Eastern Europeans who have just joined the EU - THEY of course pose no integration problems!) Steyn is nothing but a theater critic repackaging T. Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant for 2006.

Posted by tequila | May 24, 2007 8:43 AM

"After we reach a reasonable compromise on this one, maybe we can talk about the Israel/Palestine situation and then discuss whether abortion should be legal."

Just because an issue brings out lots of screaming yahoos doesn't mean it's a particularly difficult issue on the merits.

- Israel and Palestine should live in two independent states based on pre-'67 borders.

- Abortion should be legal.

- Islam is just another religion that really doesn't have much to do with government in the secular state.

- Steyn is an idiot, to be charitable.

See. That's wasn't too difficult, was it?

Posted by Petey | May 24, 2007 8:46 AM

Bill,
There are some studies in Sweden that indicate that second generation immigrants over-whelmingly embrace secular values. To the extent the culture clash is a problem it appears to be within the families of immigrants (in particular between first and second generation) rather than between natives and immigrants, at least in the Swedish context.

As for the state-mosque separation, see - in no particular order - Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and Malaysia. As far as I know, Iran and Saudi-Arabia is the exception, not the norm. At the moment, only the US, apart from Iran and Saudi-Arabia, actively support the creation of Islamist states (see Iraq).

Posted by Dan Karreman | May 24, 2007 8:56 AM

Bill wrote: their demographic ascendancy does suggest some problems for European liberal/secular democracies. Islamic societies have never really embraced the idea of separation of mosque and state - or if they have, the idea is no longer in vogue. Are Steyn bashers implying they don't have a problem with that?

Yes, that's the question that I wish Rachman or Yglesias would address with more than a tossed-off sentence or two.

Dan Karreman's remark is a start, but he seems to be trying a bit too hard to convince himself. Swedish studies might say one thing, but what Swedes say about Malmo suggests something else. Moreover his examples of "state/mosque separation" do not seem too encouraging to me.

Posted by Perry | May 24, 2007 9:13 AM

Perry,
funny that you should bring Malmo up. In contrast to you I have actually lived there (between 2000-2005). Malmo has never been hipper than now, and its hipster status is all down to the influx of immigrants. OK, so at the moment the Swedish equivalent of Mexicans (i.e. Danes) make the biggest swell, bringing up housing prices and drenching us in funny talk on the trains to Copenhagen, but I recommend everybody to take a trip to Möllevången, where Swedes, Danes, Finns, Iraqis, Persians, Somalis, Serbs, Croatians, Dutch, Bosnians, Poles, Balts and even the odd Norwegian live and have seriously fun together. Imagine that.

I don't really get the "trying to hard" part. What do you mean, like, checking the facts?

Posted by Dan Karreman | May 24, 2007 9:41 AM

"European multiculturalism" is a euphemism for Islamophobia. Assimilation is more the norm in Europe than in the United States, but because of the right's undying notion of a "melting pot," they try to project a false idea of the problem rather than discussing the problem itself: that wherever there is serious ethnic tension in Western Europe, it is the result of white Europeans expecting their neighbors to conform to odd and old notions of national identity.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | May 24, 2007 10:04 AM

Shorter Petey: "All issues are simple, if everyone just agrees with me!"

Posted by nolaboyd | May 24, 2007 10:16 AM

Dan ... thanks for your comments on Malmo (they're not quite the same as what I've seen elsewhere eg. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1206/p07s02-woeu.html ).

But certainly Lebanon is not the country to be pointing at to demonstrate how Muslims can peacefully blend into Europe. Wouldn't you agree?

Probably unlike you I have travelled in the Middle East and am not tremendously optimistic about the future of secularism in eg. Egypt and Jordan.

I don't really get the "trying to hard" part. What do you mean, like, checking the facts?

Sorry if it sounded like I was sneering. But no need so sneer back.

It seems like your vision of the future is the old "gorgeous mosaic" - and that you're certain that any indications to the contrary can be confidently dismissed. But this does nothing to convince someone who doesn't start off sharing your utopianism.

Posted by Perry | May 24, 2007 10:20 AM

Bill, Perry: what on earth do you mean, "demographic ascendancy"? Muslims are FOUR PER CENT of the European population. It's like worrying about the Mormonification of America.

Posted by ajay | May 24, 2007 10:22 AM

Muslims are FOUR PER CENT of the European population.

But they are much more than that in some countries eg. Netherlands, France. And they make up an even bigger portion of the under-18 population.

Posted by Perry | May 24, 2007 10:45 AM

Islamic societies have never really embraced the idea of separation of mosque and state - or if they have, the idea is no longer in vogue.

Are you positive that separation of church and state is a settled issue in America?

The most popular show on cable news belongs to a guy who rants about the War on Christmas and how secular liberals are destroying America. This is a common theme in the conservative movement, if you hadn't noticed, because it gets them votes. Yet it's the exact same conservatives who wring their hands over the fact that those barbaric Muslims just won't accept a secular society!

Posted by Steve | May 24, 2007 10:49 AM

I realize "Islamophobia" is considered to be some form of deranged bigotry, like "homophobia", but can we at least not stigmatize "Islamocaution"? Because caution seems to be warranted with respect to Islam. Consider, for example, the latest Pew Poll of American Muslims. Some tidbits:

- Only 40% of U.S. Muslims answer "yes" when asked "Do you believe groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks".

- 22% of U.S. Muslims believe "suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam" is sometimes justified. Among American Muslims 18-29, 31% believe this.

-

Posted by Fred | May 24, 2007 11:13 AM

It's impossible to be "too hard" on Steyn, he's an embarassment. The fact that the Atlantic Monthly continues to publish the scribblings of this clown is the main reason I'm letting my subscription run out.

Posted by vanya | May 24, 2007 11:22 AM

Perry: very probably. Are they anywhere near a national majority? No. Will they be in 20 years (as Stain predicts)? No. Thank you for your concern, but we'll be fine.

Posted by ajay | May 24, 2007 11:22 AM

"I realize "Islamophobia" is considered to be some form of deranged bigotry, like "homophobia"

No. It's really far more analogous to anti-semitism than it is to homophobia.

Posted by Petey | May 24, 2007 11:23 AM

Be careful what statistics you cite.

Re:

- Only 40% of U.S. Muslims answer "yes" when asked "Do you believe groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks".

- 22% of U.S. Muslims believe "suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam" is sometimes justified. Among American Muslims 18-29, 31% believe this.

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

I wonder what percentages you'll get of Republicans who think Saddam was responsible for 9/11? I seem to remember it was about 50% last time they were asked.

Also, if you ask Republicans if its ok to bomb Iraqi civilians (BTW, we've killed orders of magnitude more Iraqi civilians with our bombing in the past 4 years than all the suicide bombers in the world)? I'll bet you'll get about 80% saying its ok.

So, it sounds like American muslims are just as crazy as American Republicans. Wait, maybe there is something to worry about...

Posted by Jim W | May 24, 2007 11:36 AM

"But they are much more than that in some countries eg. Netherlands, France. And they make up an even bigger portion of the under-18 population."

In the Netherlands, they are at about 6%, if that.

France has the biggest Muslim population in Europe, almost 10%.

Second-generation Muslim immigrants also share the European tendency to stop having lots of kids. There are also the intermarriage stats I cited before.

Posted by tequila | May 24, 2007 11:43 AM

"No. It's really far more analogous to anti-semitism than it is to homophobia."

Analogous in the sense that false charges of Islamophobia are sometimes used to quash debate of important issues? Such as the Pew polls finding that 31% of young Muslims are cool with suicide bombings of civilian targets? Or Sudden Jihad Syndrome?

Posted by Fred | May 24, 2007 11:48 AM

Come on, yglesias. If youre going to charge someone with being a bigot surely the onus is on you to come up with something better than a decontextualised quote featured in a book review.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 24, 2007 11:50 AM

22% of U.S. Muslims believe "suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam" is sometimes justified. Among American Muslims 18-29, 31% believe this.

I strongly suspect that an non-insignificant percentage of American Christians would in theory support the killing of civilians if necessary to save their religion.

Posted by Peter | May 24, 2007 11:55 AM

"Analogous in the sense that false charges of Islamophobia are sometimes used to quash debate of important issues?"

No. Analogous in the sense that both Islamophobia and anti-semitism demonstrate such a weird sense of insecurity - that other folks having a different religion somehow imperils one's own identity.

Posted by Petey | May 24, 2007 12:02 PM

OK, Jim W., I'll be more careful citing statistics in the future. Maybe next time, I'll take your lead and not bother to cite anything at all.

In the meantime, I'll try to shake off the cold breeze of Republicanophobia I felt from your post. Brrr!

Posted by Fred | May 24, 2007 12:10 PM

Steyn is a half-wit, or completely dishonest, or (most likely) a completely dishonest half-wit.

For all his "Muslims are swamping Europe" nonsense, the Muslim percentage in Europe is pretty close to the Asian percentage in North America, and the growth rates are pretty similar as well.

Maybe Steyn and his Rush Limbaugh/National Review friends should therefore focus instead on the horrific "Yellow Peril" to America, and the very real risk that within a couple of generations Mandarin will have replaced English as our national language.

I must say that these neocon hoaxes are getting more transparently ridiculous every day...

Incidently, here's a pretty detailed discussion of the demographics on another blog site:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/05/gods-contintent-christianity-islam-and.php

Posted by RKU | May 24, 2007 12:21 PM

Petey:

"I strongly suspect that an non-insignificant percentage of American Christians would in theory support the killing of civilians if necessary to save their religion."

When you cite a reputable poll that supports your suspicion, I'll start worrying about that. In the meantime, I'll wonder whether this suspicion wasn't informed by Christianityophobia.

"Islamophobia and anti-semitism demonstrate such a weird sense of insecurity - that other folks having a different religion somehow imperils one's own identity."

This sense of insecurity and imperiled identity you speak of sounds like it would more accurately describe the attitude of some devout Muslims who feel threatened by people who don't share Islamic views. For example, The Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis, who are refusing to give rides to passengers they suspect of having alcohol, or the attitude of the Muslim cab driver in London who refused to a ride to a blind woman, because he considered her guide dog to be 'unclean' according to his religion.

Posted by Fred | May 24, 2007 12:26 PM

Fred wrote: 22% of U.S. Muslims believe "suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam" is sometimes justified.

In reality, page 53 of the actual Pew report says as follows:

Can suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam be justified?

Often/sometimes: 8%
Rarely: 5%
Never: 78%
Don't know/refused to answer: 9%

I see Fred, as usual, checked his credibility at the door. Only 8% said suicide bombings are "sometimes" justified.

Greenwald put these numbers in the proper context by analyzing a poll which asked Americans as a whole whether "bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" were ever justified. The results:

Often: 5%
Sometimes: 19%
Rarely: 27%
Never: 46%

When the same poll question was asked in Iran, incidentally, 3% said "often" and a full 80% said "never."

Not to belabor the point, but the poll continues:

Respondents were then asked to think “in the context of war and other forms of military conflict” and to consider whether certain types of civilians could be a legitimate target. Overwhelming majorities of Iranians rejected as “never justified:” attacks on women and children (91%), the elderly (92%), and “wives and children of the military” (86%). Americans largely agreed, though larger percentages in each case said such attacks were rarely justified. This was true for attacks on women and children (72% never, 15% rarely), the elderly (71% never, 16% rarely), and wives and children of the military (74% never, 12% rarely).

78% of American Muslims say suicide bombings in the name of Islam are never justified, and Fred freaks out. By comparison, only 72% of Americans say bombings and other attacks on civilian women and children are never justified, and... what?

Posted by Steve | May 24, 2007 12:29 PM

I wonder how many of the Americans who think France is being swamped by angry young Muslims, and that this is due to a failure of vigilance by [white] [Christian] Europeans, are even aware that France occupied Algeria for 130 years. That other bastion of embattled Christendom, the Netherlands, occupied Indonesia for 300 years. Yeah, that's a hell of a "fearless Muslim advance". We're not talking ancient history - these both ended within the lifetimes of the current generation's parents or grandparents.

If you don't want a lot of relatively poor people from another culture to regard your country as a place of opportunity and/or a second home, or if you're offended by their disinclination to assimilate and imitate you, then try not taking over their country.

Posted by Hob | May 24, 2007 1:12 PM

"Fred wrote: 22% of U.S. Muslims believe "suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam" is sometimes justified..."

Subtract 78% of the American Muslims polled who come out against suicide bombings and you're left with 22% who either say it's justified "often/sometimes", "rarely", or "DK/refuse to answer the question". For simplicity's sake, I summarized all those who did not agree that suicide bombings against civilians are "never justified" as holding the only other logical position: that such suicide bombings are "sometimes justified".

For the same reason, I similarly summarized the 31% of young American Muslims (18-29) who either thought suicide bombings were justified "often/sometimes" (15%), "rarely" (11%), and "DK/refused to answer" (5%).

In reality, the actual percentage of Muslim Americans who don't agree that suicide bombings of civilians are "never justified" is probably slightly higher than these percentages due to survey bias.

Posted by Fred | May 24, 2007 1:58 PM

Second-generation Muslim immigrants also share the European tendency to stop having lots of kids. There are also the intermarriage stats I cited before.

Twenty years ago this kind of thinking seemed obvious. But recent events have made many people wonder if the assimilation thing is really happening. Or whether the complexion of Western societies is changing significantly as people offended by gays, liquor stores, and crosses become an increasingly numerous and vocal minority that harbors some tiny but significant number of violent radicals.

And if someone points to Lebanon for an example of how Islam can coexist with democracy, shouldn't we wonder whether he's in fact a realist?

Posted by Perry | May 24, 2007 1:59 PM

Dan,

Good think you're not a woman. It seems that there's been an epidemic of rapes by Muslims in Malmo.

At least it's "hip" though.

Posted by Harry | May 24, 2007 2:25 PM

Muslim general who made it to the outskirts of Paris in 732

oO ?

I suppose Mr Rachman is just repeating the bollocks in the book. Poitiers is 350 kilometers south of Paris.

Too bad Martel pushed them back, by the way, europe circa 730 could well have used some Islamic civilisation.

Posted by yabonn | May 24, 2007 2:29 PM

When you cite a reputable poll that supports your suspicion, I'll start worrying about that. In the meantime, I'll wonder whether this suspicion wasn't informed by Christianityophobia.

I know that the numbers look pretty much exactly like what you get when Israeli polls were done on if Yigal Amir's assassination of Rabin or Goldstein's massacre in Hebron had religious justification. I strongly suspect if we bothered to ask fundamentalist Christains an analagous question you would wind up with the same sort of numbers for the "murdering for God" crowd.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 24, 2007 2:46 PM

"I strongly suspect if we bothered to ask fundamentalist Christains..."

I'll disregard the usual attempted equivalence between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists and simply note that the Pew survey was of "American Muslims", not "fundamentalist American Muslims".

I thought liberals were supposed to be the reality-based ones. A reality-based individual would react to the Pew survey results with at least a moderate amount of concern, instead of rushing to rationalize the results (Islamocomplacency) or claim that Christians are just as bad or worse (Christianityphobia). Why do you shut off the reasoning part of your minds when words like "Islam", "race", "immigration", "achievement", etc. come up? It's almost as if, on some issues, you prefer to adhere to faith (in multiculturalism, egalitarianism, etc.) than reason.

Posted by Fred | May 24, 2007 3:24 PM

Fred, about 30% of all adults, regardless of religion, hold extremist political views (e.g., support for torture, belief that Saddam was behind sept. 11th, etc.). That this statistic should be consistent amoung Muslims shouldn't be a surprise. And, as other posters point out, the numbers among American muslims are even lower than you claimed.

Posted by Constantine | May 24, 2007 3:42 PM

So I (or you) should be more hysterical about Jews or at least equally hysterical? I picked them out because it was all I had for polling data on religious murder, but also because this whole vein of questioning reads exactly like early 20th century anti-semitic arguments: They breed like rats, they are taking over, they don't follow our laws, rape our women, what are we going to do about it. There is no "reason" going on here, people seriously considering the threat of a Muslim takeover of Europe is a massive red flag that we have lost our minds not that I need to take this sort of drivel more seriously.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 24, 2007 3:43 PM

Assuming he's being sincere, "Fred" seems an extraordinarily gullible fellow...

To Fred:

Please do try to think through the events of the last few years in American politics and in the Republican Party. Think carefully...

Posted by RKU | May 24, 2007 3:48 PM

"So I (or you) should be more hysterical about Jews or at least equally hysterical?"

When I see a poll that says that 22% of American Jews don't agree that suicide bombings of civilians in defense of Judaism are never justified, I will start worrying about terrorist sympathies among American Jews. Opinion polls of Israeli Jews about the murder of Rabin, or -- of Egyptians about the murder of Sadat, for that matter -- are less important to me than the views of American Muslims or Jews.

Posted by Fred | May 24, 2007 4:05 PM

I know that the numbers look pretty much exactly like what you get when Israeli polls were done on if Yigal Amir's assassination of Rabin or Goldstein's massacre in Hebron had religious justification.

That's crap. If you "know" then provide a link.

Posted by Ohad | May 24, 2007 5:18 PM

Get a copy of Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Shahak.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 24, 2007 5:44 PM

Islamophobe is a silly sounding word. Steyn is an anti-Muslim bigot. There are a lot of bigots in America.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 24, 2007 6:27 PM