Christian Hospitality and Muslim Immigration in an Age of Fear

Matthew Kaemingk

• Éditeur: Eerdmans
• Année: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781467449526
• Sujet: Theology & Religion
• Sous-sujet: Religion

An alternative, uniquely Christian response to the growing global challenges of deep religious difference

In the last fifty years, millions of Muslims have migrated to Europe and North America. Their arrival has ignited a series of fierce public debates on both sides of the Atlantic about religious freedom and tolerance, terrorism and security, gender and race, and much more. How can Christians best respond to this situation?

In this book theologian and ethicist Matthew Kaemingk offers a thought-provoking Christian perspective on the growing debates over Muslim presence in the West. Rejecting both fearful nationalism and romantic multiculturalism, Kaemingk makes the case for a third way—a Christian pluralism that is committed to both the historic Christian faith and the public rights, dignity, and freedom of Islam.

PART ONE

Mecca and Amsterdam: A Case Study

CHAPTER ONE

The Myth of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism has been relegated to the dung-hill of history.

JEROEN DOOMERNIK¹

In 2011, the political leaders of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom achieved something rare—unanimous agreement. They all agreed on two critical points that would have a major impact on the future of Islam in Europe. First, they agreed that the millions of Muslims living in Europe constituted a problem that needed to solved. And second, they agreed their past solution—something they called multiculturalism—had been a complete and unmitigated failure. David Cameron, then British prime minister, argued that the policies of multiculturalism have had “disastrous results”; they have “totally failed,” added German chancellor Angela Merkel; and “Clearly, yes, it is a failure,” concluded Nicolas Sarkozy, then president of France. Looking back on this supposed disaster, Sarkozy insisted that there was now only one solution to the Muslim problem. Muslims in France must now “melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if [they] do not want to accept that, [they] cannot be welcome in France.”²

These politicians were not speaking out of turn; they were giving voice to a deep and dramatic shift that had occurred in European political culture. Before this shift, during the twentieth century, criticism of immigrants or immigration policy had been largely ignored or, more accurately, suppressed. No one would discuss it. However, at the turn of the century and in the wake of a series of terrorist attacks, rising urban crime levels, and a collection of fierce controversies regarding religious freedom, the long-standing gag order began to fail. By 2011, the dam of political silence on the issue had burst completely. A series of sweeping statements about Islam raced across the European political scene. Activists, citizens, and, increasingly, politicians began to openly argue that Islam was a problem, that Muslim immigrants were failing to integrate, that they represented a threat to the European way of life, and, finally, that something called multiculturalism was to blame for all of this.³

Rather than the anemic and effeminate policy of multiculturalism, Europeans were increasingly demanding something David Cameron called “muscular liberalism.”⁴ Cameron insisted that Europe needed a more aggressive and confident form of liberalism and that the continent required an ideological posture that was not afraid to enforce secular values on religious newcomers. Politicians like Merkel, Sarkozy, and Cameron soon began to argue that Europe needed to stand up for secular liberalism and force Islam to a point of decision—either integrate or go home.

The muscular liberalism of Cameron, Merkel, and Sarkozy in 2011 is now considered quite moderate in today’s European political theater. In the years since 2011, each of these leaders’ center-right parties have been outflanked by the far-right on the issue of Islam. Nationalist parties have risen in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and beyond. For these emerging populist movements of European nativism, the old policies of multiculturalism are said to represent the naïve dreams of the past. Muscular liberalism, on the other hand, is said to be the absolute necessity of the future.

This dramatic shift in European political culture is now being mirrored across the Atlantic in American politics. A simple comparison of the rhetoric of two Republican presidents will sufficiently tell the tale. In 2001, mere days after the attacks of 9/11, President George W. Bush met with American Muslim leaders and, following their meeting, he had this to say:

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war. America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms, and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect. Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.⁵

Juxtapose George W. Bush’s posture toward Islam with that of his Republican heir Donald Trump fifteen years later. In 2016, Trump pointed to Roosevelt’s decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II as a justification for his call not only to halt all Islamic immigration into the United States but to form a national database to register and track all Muslims in the country. In addition, Trump called for a new “intense screening” process for all Muslim immigrants to ascertain their convictions regarding democracy, free speech, and American ideals.

Fifteen years earlier, Donald Trump’s proposals would have been roundly condemned by both parties as bigoted and fundamentally anti-American. His presidential candidacy would have been dismissed as a fringe movement. Not in 2016. Like Europe’s, American political culture has shifted dramatically on the question of Islam. Labeling Donald Trump the instigator of this dramatic political shift fundamentally misses a deeper cultural shift going on in America. Donald Trump is not its founder or inventor; he is its current voice. Trump’s speeches reflect a deep and growing anti-Islamic sentiment that has been slowly building throughout American political culture since 9/11 and even before.⁶

The true instigators of this anti-Islamic movement in the United States have been a collection of right-wing authors, speakers, radio hosts, and columnists. These thought-leaders have been dedicated to influencing the Republican base since the 1990s on the issue of Islam. It is these people who have been carefully preparing the political soil for a populist like Donald Trump to take root. Any cursory survey of right-wing books or articles on the scourge of Islam in America will—without fail—include a variety of references to Islam in Europe. These books point to Europe as the cautionary tale for America. They argue that decades of liberal European tolerance and multiculturalism created a dangerous situation in which Europe could be overrun by burqas, minarets, crime, terrorism, and Shari’a.

Learning from Amsterdam

Whether European or American, anti-Islamic books and articles continually point to the failed multiculturalism of a single nation to make their point—the Netherlands.⁷ These authors argue that the failures of Dutch multiculturalism clearly illustrate, once and for all, that Islam must be met, not with Western tolerance, but with Western strength. Pointing to the Netherlands, right-wing leaders insist that Muslims will only take advantage of Western generosity and freedom. In return for their benevolence, Europeans can expect nothing from Islam but terrorism, crime, unemployment, and segregation.

The fierce logic of this constructed narrative is airtight. The story of an apocalyptic clash between Mecca and Amsterdam is powerfully composed. It is filled with a compelling cast of characters, including oppressed Muslim women, naive multiculturalists, violent Muslim men, and courageous nationalist heroes willing to die a martyr’s death for the cause of European values. This constructed narrative of Mecca and Amsterdam has spread through right-wing circles in both Europe and the United States. The title of Theodore Dalrymple’s article perfectly captures its platonic ideal: “A Wiser Holland: The Dutch, Mugged by Reality, Toughen Up on Radical Islam.” According to articles like these, it was as if multiculturalists had been mugged by the reality that Islam is nothing but a violent and fascist ideology—one that understands nothing but the language of force.

Told and retold by nationalists in Europe and the United States, the basic narrative goes like this: once upon a time the Netherlands was the most free, diverse, tolerant, and progressive nation in the world. Innocent and naïve, the Dutch generously welcomed Muslims into their multicultural Shangri-La. Blinded by their dream of a diverse and tolerant nation, the Dutch invited more and more Muslim immigrants to come and freely express their unique culture and values. All criticism of Islam was strictly forbidden in the Netherlands. Those who questioned Islam were labeled racists and bigots by a multicultural regime of political correctness. As Islam spread, the Dutch elites provided enormous government subsidies to Islamic families, organizations, and schools. (Here is where the constructed story takes an especially dark turn.) The tolerance and generosity of Dutch multiculturalism created a dangerous subculture of Islamic extremism. Multiculturalism actually created the dangerous situation of Islamic unemployment, dependency, segregation, crime, violence, and a whole host of other social problems. The constructed story of this clash between Mecca and Amsterdam concludes with the inevitable question, “What can we learn from all of this?” The answer is simple: since Islam will only bite our open and extended hand, then all that remains now is our fist.

Amsterdam Teaches America

Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, two Dutch exports, have been the most ardent international storytellers of this constructed narrative. In recent years, they have traveled throughout Europe and the United States calling for a more muscular liberal response to Islam. Together, the two firebrands have played a significant role in bringing this narrative to American audiences through bestselling books, articles, speeches, cable news, and consultations with American politicians and media.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives in the United States and has worked for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington. From her position, Ali has written a host of popular pieces outlining the dangers of Islam and the failures of Dutch multiculturalism. She has given numerous speeches and interviews throughout the United States warning Americans not to make the same mistake as the Dutch.

Since his rise to power in the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders has made several trips to the United States, speaking at numerous anti-Islamic political rallies, in American megachurches, and even at the 9/11 memorial site in New York City. Wilders has made appearances on Fox News with popular hosts like Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. In each case, Wilders vividly retells the dark story of Mecca and Amsterdam and warns Americans about the dangers that will befall their nation if they walk the same path.

In 2011, Wilders gave a speech at Cornerstone Church in Madison, Tennessee, entitled “A Warning to America.” There in the sanctuary, he argued, “My friends, I am sorry. I am here today with an unpleasant message. I am here with a warning. I am here with a battle cry: ‘Wake up, Christians of Tennessee. Islam is at your gate.’” He continues, “Do not make the mistake which Europe made. Do not allow Islam to gain a foothold here.”⁸ A number of Tennessee towns not far from Cornerstone Church have made national headlines for publically banning Shari’a law and the construction of new mosques. A ...