Akbar Ahmed’s Response to Andrew Moravcsik’s Review of Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration, and Identity
By Professor Akbar Ahmed
Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies
School of International Service
American University
Washington, DC
The following is Akbar Ahmed’s response to Andrew Moravcsik’s review of his book Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration, and Identity (Brookings Institution Press) in Foreign Affairs’ November/December 2018 issue. This response was originally submitted to Foreign Affairs as a letter to the editor, but, unfortunately, after unfairly representing the book, Foreign Affairs refused to publish it.
I was shocked to read Andrew Moravcsik’s review of Journey into Europe, which so utterly distorted the study, based in fieldwork with a research team in ten European countries over four years and hundreds of interviews across the spectrum of society—both Muslims and non-Muslims.
In his one paragraph review, Moravcsik sums up my argument as seeking “to reform modern Europe along the lines of medieval Muslim Spain,” a purported objective that Moravcsik derides as “far-fetched,” “inappropriate,” unfeasible, and undesirable. In fact I make it very clear that the model of medieval Muslim Spain is “dated, impractical, and has little legitimacy” (p. 23). It is dismaying that Moravcsik would repeat such arguments falsely attributed to the book that, to my knowledge, have only appeared in reviews written on websites of the recognized “Islamophobia network.”
If Moravcsik were accurate in his analysis, he would have stated that my thesis involves Europeans today recognizing and drawing from the spirit of humanism, pluralism, the arts, and sciences evidenced not only in Muslim Spain but also places like Christian Sicily that helped shape the Renaissance and Enlightenment, making an indelible impact on European culture and civilization. Yet I am insistent that such an exercise be balanced with local, powerful, and historically rooted European identities, which provide “stability and continuity in uncertain times” and give “pride” to the ethnic communities of European nations (p. 521).
Not only does Moravcsik cite a fake solution to the predicament European countries face with their Muslim communities and attribute it to me, but he ignores my actual solutions, stating that the book only has “vague” and “hazy” proposals to offer. Yet my numerous proposals include, “for both Muslims and non-Muslims…to acquire knowledge about each other” (p. 507); “Many Muslims today appear indifferent to the larger local culture and need to work harder and with sensitivity to become part of society” (p. 508); government sponsored integration programs to foster Muslims’ “equal access to education and employment as the rest of society” (p. 510); “Facilitate the training of imams” in European languages and with European cultural sensitivities (pp. 511-512); and “Recognize that Muslims tend to view the European Union favorably” (p. 515).
Moravcsik rightly states that my team and I found in our fieldwork, “Muslims feel disadvantaged, stereotyped, and marginalized.” But Moravcsik then asserts, “Sadly, the book has little to say about the roots of these perceptions.” This is odd given that the entirety of chapter 2 (pp. 40-101) is an examination of the roots of European perceptions of Muslims and “outsiders,” an analysis beginning two thousand years ago. As for Muslim societies in Europe, there are so many detailed analyses of the Islamic interactions with Europe over the centuries exploring the roots of the current situation within the book’s nearly 600 pages, it is impossible to cite them here. One simply must read the book.
Back to Pakistanlink Homepage
