Daily Times

Sociology shows us how people ‘operate’ in life according to their perceptions of things. Individuals and groups act according to a specific ‘definition of a situation’, which needs to be studied in detail in order to understand their corresponding actions and worldviews. This article seeks to academically probe into the socio-historical-psychological state of mind associated with the concept of ‘Eurabia’. This idea is at the heart of the arguments made by Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer, as documented in his manifesto. Such details will help us understand the July 22 events in Norway and the current wave of Islamophobia in Europe with greater clarity.

An examination of the current social thought coming from various groups in Europe, especially in the aftermath of the Breivik episode, shows how these conservative quarters are concerned about Europe turning into Eurabia, a concept, in its current usage, articulated by Egyptian-born British author and political commentator Bat Ye’or and extensively used by Fjordman and other writers. According to Eurabia: The Euro Arab Axis (2005) by Ye’or, Eurabia will be the new ‘condition’ of Europe after it has been culturally and politically appended into the Arab-Muslim World. It will be “fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-western, anti-American and anti-Semitic, while striving for Israel’s disappearance and the vilification and isolation of America.”

The standpoint of Bat Ye’or is that this ‘turn’ in European history came about after the 1973 war between the Arabs and Israel. According to her, this is precisely when Muslim-Arab thought, supported by petro-economics, entered European politico-economic quarters through organisations like the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in Paris in 1974. Moreover, the Palestinian issue also came into renewed limelight after this event. Echoing her is Fjordman in The Eurabia Code according to whom, “the Islamicisation of Europe did not happen merely by accident but with the active participation of European political leaders” and it was geared towards the “formation of a Euro-Arab entity hostile to American influence. It facilitated European ambitions to maintain important spheres of influence in the former European colonies, while opening huge markets for European products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries, in order to secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe.” In exchange, Fjordman states, Europe had to open itself to a greater Muslim presence by promoting multiculturalism and favouring Muslim immigration.

Ye’or cites declarations and arrangements like The Algiers Declaration for a Shared Vision of the Future in 2006 as the roadmap to achieve a new Euro-Mediterranean entity. Breivik has especially quoted in his manifesto her lines, “the document states that: ‘It is essential to create a Euro-Mediterranean entity founded on universal values’” and that “It is crucial to positively emphasise all common cultural heritage, even if marginalised or forgotten”. Such an entity based on multicultural values, according to Ye’or and other related conservative authors, will subvert Europe’s future, creating Eurabia where Muslims will reign supreme over the continent both demographically and ideologically. Accordingly, then, Europe will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world and Europeans, Ye’or interprets, will have to live in dhimmitude (servitude) in the near future.

Ye’or stops here in tracing the past. However, connecting the dots with history may help us understand current Islamophobia better. An analysis of various websites carrying content about Eurabia shows how the anti-multicultural groups are trying to reconstruct the times when Europe experienced the Siege of Vienna, a historical event that took place first in the year 1529 and, especially, later in 1683. In the latter case, after having gained control over substantive areas of south-eastern Europe, the Ottoman Muslim army attempted to finally conquer Vienna, Austria. Having failed to take control of the city in 1529, the 1683 siege of Vienna by Muslim forces lasted for two months and the Battle of Vienna, following the siege, concluded the 300-year struggle between the central European kingdoms and the Ottoman empire. The Muslims ultimately lost and their strength in Europe declined. Somehow, it is significant to mention that the conclusive clash began on September 11, 1683.

The immensity of the historic episode has been well described by historian Crowley (2008) as “an epic struggle between rival empires and faiths for control of the Mediterranean and the centre of the world”. Stoye (2008) calls this the “last great trial between cross and crescent”. For many, this epic struggle seems to be continuing today; ‘the battle for the soul of Europe’ has, perhaps, not ended.

Breivik himself has mentioned the Vienna siege many times in his document. And such a state of mind — an interpretation about the current situation in Europe — can be seen through a very revealing line on the Gates of Vienna blog, a popular website quoted by Breivik and featuring conservative thought including Fjordman and Bynum, which states, “at the siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war”. Therefore the perception in European conservative quarters is of Muslims having ‘besieged’ Europe; their psychological definition of the situation considers a real collision at hand.

As a humble student of social thought, many aspects of the Eurabia thesis and its associated psyche are quite questionable in my understanding. The world, perhaps, is more complicated. But this, in itself, is the problem with simplistic theories like Eurabia; they are more pervasive. With a clear dearth of effective voices that can bridge the widening gulf between such conservative European groups and Muslims today, the future seems to be clearly intricate. With strands of fundamentalist thought on both sides and an environment of mistrust where few are ready to listen, the world seems to be entering into an uneasy age where concepts like peace, tolerance and pluralism may be put to test. While it is essential for civilisations and social groups not to forget history, learning from it is more important. ‘Importing’ history into the present has its connected issues; it can sometimes amount to living in the past. And, perhaps, many of us living today, deeply obsessed with historical conquests and medieval sieges, seem to be sacrificing a peaceful future while trying to relive narratives of a warring past.

The writer teaches sociology at the University College Lahore (UCL). He can be reached at naqibhamid@gmail.com