The Multicultural Myth, Anti-Semitism, and Misogyny

In defense of Ilhan Omar, Representative Jan Schakowsky said, “she comes from a different culture.” But that’s precisely the point, isn’t it?

Rep. Ilhan Omar speaking at a Hillary for MN event at the University of Minnesota in October 2016. [Lorie Shaull | Wikipedia]

The unanswered question about the controversy over Representative Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic statements is why anyone was surprised by them.

Judging by the heavy duty hijabs she wears, Omar is a religious Muslim. And the Koran, which is sacred scripture to Muslims, is replete with anti-Jewish sentiments: Jews are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they wish evil for people and try to mislead them (2:109); and they are cursed by Allah (9:30) who transformed them into apes and pigs (5:59-60). It shouldn’t come as a surprise that someone who takes the Koran seriously might harbor anti-Semitic attitudes.

In the Muslim world, Jews are widely considered to be at the back of every bad thing that’s ever happened. Just a few days ago, for example, a Muslim student at NYU accused Chelsea Clinton of being a cause of the New Zealand mosque attack. Clinton’s crime? In the wake of Ilhan Omar’s tweet, Clinton tweeted: “We should expect all elected officials…to not traffic in anti-Semitism.” So a mild criticism of anti-Semitism somehow led a white supremacist in New Zealand who is, in all probability, also an anti-Semite, to kill Muslims at worship. That’s hard to figure. But, then, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories are not known for their logical consistency.

At this point one is supposed to say that not all Muslims are anti-Semitic. That’s quite true. One is also supposed to add that the vast majority of Muslims are not in the least anti-Semitic. But that, sorry to say, is highly doubtful. An ADL global survey of anti-Semitic attitudes reveals that people who live in Muslim majority lands score higher on anti-Semitism than other people in other countries. In the West Bank and Gaza 93 % of those surveyed had anti-Semitic attitudes. In Iraq the figure was 92%. In both Libya and Algeria, 87% had a negative view of Jews, while 86% of Tunisians and 80% of Moroccans held anti-Semitic views.

It follows that—unless they become thoroughly assimilated—Muslims who migrate from these countries into the West will carry these anti-Semitic attitudes with them. Exhibit A is Europe. The continent which promised the world, “never again,” has seen a dramatic rise in anti-Jewish hate crimes coinciding with the recent migration of millions of Muslims into Europe.

But instead of resisting the new wave of anti-Semitism, a significant number of European politicians are adapting to it. A prime example is Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the British Labour Party, who has basically done nothing to quell the growing anti-Jewish element in his party. The slide into anti-Semitism is in part a response to the rise of the Muslim voter. According to the Office of National Statistics, the Muslim population of England and Wales in 2011 was 5.4 percent of the total, while the Jewish population stood at only 0.5 percent.

The muted Democratic Party response to Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism suggests that the Democrats, like their counterparts in Britain, will also follow the path of least resistance. Instead of a strong resolution condemning anti-Semitism, all that the Democrats could muster was a watered-down statement condemning every kind of hate under the sun. Currently, Jews in America outnumber Muslims, but by 2040, Muslims will replace Jews as the second largest religious group after Christians.

If one takes a global view, the Muslim-Jewish ratio is even more lopsided. There are approximately 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, but only about 16 million Jews. To put that in perspective, consider that the total population of all the Jews in the world is less than half of the population of Tokyo. If you’re a politician with an eye on potential voters, you’re not going to expend a lot of energy defending a group of people that makes up only .02 percent of the world’s population.

In defense of Ilhan Omar, Representative Jan Schakowsky said, “she comes from a different culture.” But that’s precisely the point, isn’t it? Culture is very powerful. It does shape the way people think and act. We all know it, but our society requires us to deny it. The culture-shapers in the West demand that we acquiesce in the fiction that all cultures and religions are equally beneficent, tolerant, and freedom loving, and thus all people share the same basic values. They tell us that a multicultural world will be a less bigoted one.

But the truth is, most Muslims grow up in cultures that are steeped in anti-Semitism. It’s not a hypothesis. It’s a fact. Some Muslims rise above their cultural conditioning, but many do not. Thus, it is quite reasonable to expect that when Muslims migrate they will bring some of that anti-Semitic conditioning with them. Ilhan Omar is not an aberration. She is in the Islamic mainstream.

What else can we expect as Muslim migration into the West increases? One doesn’t have to be a Nostradamus to predict an increase in misogyny and a rise in the mistreatment of women. Islamic societies are not friendly to women’s rights. In Mauritania, the Parliament has twice rejected a bill that would require tougher penalties for violence against women. The rejected bill would also have allowed women to travel without their husband’s permission. But the Islamic arbiters of culture in Mauritania said no. Not surprisingly, similar bills to protect women and to raise the marriageable age for girls have been rejected in a number of different legislatures throughout the Muslim world.

The Koran says that “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other” (4: 34). The same passage authorizes husbands to “admonish them [their wives] and send them to beds apart and beat them” (4: 34). Moreover, an authoritative Hadith records that Muhammad gave his comrades permission to rape non-Muslim women captured in combat (Sahih Muslim, vol. 2, no. 3371). Since Islam considers itself to be in a permanent state of war with the non-Islamic world, this is often interpreted by some Muslim men to mean that non-Muslim women in non-Islamic countries can be raped with impunity.

Should it come as a surprise, then, that as Muslim immigration into Europe has increased, so has the incidence of rape and other sexual assaults against girls and women? When arrested and brought before courts, the perpetrators are often puzzled. They don’t see anything wrong with their behavior, and they argue that in their own countries, uncovered women are fair game. In similar fashion, their lawyers frequently trot out the “they-come-from-a-different-culture” defense. And it frequently works. Judges in Europe tend to give astonishingly light sentences to Muslims who are found guilty of rape.

The question is not, “Does culture affect attitudes and behaviors?” Everyone from lenient German judges to culturally sensitive Democratic congresswomen tacitly admits that it does. The question is, are there objective standards of right and wrong by which all cultures can be judged? That is the question that the Nuremberg Trial judges had to answer after the Holocaust. And that is the question before us today.

The same question comes up in the matter of female genital mutilation (FGM). Although FGM has been a criminal offense in the UK since 1985, it has nevertheless become a major problem which may affect as many as 60,000 girls. How did the once unheard of practice of FGM grow to such proportions? The most likely reason is that it was never prosecuted. In fact, the first conviction for FGM in Britain didn’t occur until February of this year.

Why is that? FGM expert and attorney Dr. Charlotte Proudman maintains that the lack of prosecutions is due to fears about being accused of racism: “[Doctors and police] are concerned about cultural sensitivities, worried about being branded racists.’’ In short, British authorities consider FGM to be a cultural thing, and thus something that they, as good multiculturalists, shouldn’t pass judgement on. Meanwhile, in Britain and also in continental Europe, tens of thousands of Muslim girls and young women continue to pay the price for this non-judgmental attitude. It is estimated that at least 500,000 European Muslims have been victims of the brutal practice.

Will FGM come to America? As you probably know, it already has. The only question is, will it spread? According to the Population Reference Bureau, the number of woman and girls at risk for FGM has doubled in the past ten years, with more than half a million at risk of undergoing the procedure.

One of the three metropolitan areas where the practice is most prevalent is Minneapolis which has the largest Somali Muslim community in the U.S., and is also the home district of Ilhan Omar. Omar has said that the practice is “heinous,” but nevertheless argued against a Minnesota bill that would increase penalties for FGM (although she ultimately voted for it.)

Another place with a disproportionate number of FGM cases is the Detroit area, which also happens to be the home district of Rashida Tlaib, the other Muslim congresswoman and a defender of Ilhan Omar. In November, 2018 a Federal Judge in Detroit dismissed multiple charges of FGM against a Michigan doctor and her co-defendants, ruling that the federal law banning FGM is unconstitutional. Tellingly, the doctor’s lawyers used the “multicultural” defense saying that their clients were being “persecuted for practicing their religion by a culture and society that doesn’t understand their beliefs and is misinterpreting what they did.”

The judge’s ruling was based on a legal technicality, not on the cultural defense, but as the Muslim population in the U.S. grows, we are likely to hear more of the “we-have-a-different- culture” argument in defense of anti-Jewish sentiments, misogynist practices, and FGM.

Ironically, one of the strongest voices protesting against the relativistic multicultural position is that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali who, like Ilhan Omar, is also a refugee from Somalia. A former member of the Dutch Parliament and also a former Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is, perhaps, the leading defender of a woman’s inherent rights against Islam’s cultural and religious claims. Here is the mission statement of her AHA Foundation:

The organization believes in liberty for all. That means liberty from female genital mutilation, honor violence and forced marriages. And it means liberty to challenge the ideology of Islamism—extremism that threatens Western Civilization—with rational Enlightenment thought.

We are rapidly coming to the point where we will have to choose between Hirsi Ali’s defense of universal rights, and the multicultural view that what’s right and wrong is relative—simply a function of one’s surrounding culture.

Although Hirsi Ali is an atheist, she respects Christianity, and her natural rights philosophy with its emphasis on rationality is close to the Catholic position. The Catholic Church holds that there is a natural order of things which is accessible to our reason. Out of this natural law flow certain natural rights as well as moral duties proper to our human nature. The Church is, in fact, one of the few institutions still capable of making the case that moral rules are not arbitrary inventions of cultures but rather that they follow from a proper understanding of our human nature.

We tend to take it for granted that the rejection of anti-Semitism and misogyny will continue to be bedrock principles of our society. But it’s best not to make that assumption. Because recent generations of Americans have been thoroughly schooled in the doctrine of cultural relativism, the battle for these bedrock principles may have to be fought all over again.


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About William Kilpatrick 56 Articles
William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Psychological Seduction, Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong and, most recently, Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West. Professor Kilpatrick’s articles on cultural and educational topics have appeared in First Things, Policy Review, American Enterprise, American Educator, The Los Angeles Times, and various scholarly journals. His articles on Islam have appeared in Aleteia, National Catholic Register, Investor’s Business Daily, FrontPage Magazine, and other publications. Professor Kilpatrick’s work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com.

9 Comments

  1. Not the stated subject of this article, it appears also however that covered here is a denunciation of abortion. “The question is, are there objective standards of right and wrong by which all cultures can be judged? That is the question that the Nuremberg Trial judges had to answer after the Holocaust. And that is the question before us today.” At a time when the killing of infants in and now out of the womb is defended by law and even celebrated, this question needs to be answered again sadly in this time, for all time.

    • Judging cultures, hmmm, very interesting question. How about the culture of a head-hunting African tribe, or the culture of Wiccans in America, or Voodoo believing societies.
      Or how about some of the ancient cultures like the Canaanites who put their babies into the red hot hands of a metal Molech? Or Incans who pulled the heart out of human bodies while still beating?
      Frankly, I’m not sure what your question is really about. Or are you just referring to the cultures of today. But then, in Saudi Arabia they have public beheadings in stadiums. And in Afghanistan they celebrate by throwing dozens of goats over a cliff.
      Are you implying that all of these cultures have some redeeming aspects to them, that there exists some standard that we can accept them all as valid and humane. Or are you looking for a standard that will discern the evil in cultures and root it out, thus changing the culture to to a true definition of humane and loving?

  2. Professor Kilpatrick tells the awful truth.

    Here is another horrifying truth: self-styled political “progressives,” including self-styled “progressive” Catholic Bishops (among others), take sides with “Palestinian” political causes, despite the published surveys showing that Palestinian Muslims are among the top 3 most violent Muslim communities in the world (comparable to Pakistan and Afghanistan), according to The Pew Poll, showing that approx 67% of Palestinian Moslems approve of deadly Sharia practices (stoning, cutting off hands, death for apostasy). In Afghanistan, the percentage favoring deadly Sharia is approximately 71%.

    These are staggering when you recognize that this is how they choose to treat their fellow Moslems.

    It makes one wonder: how many of the leadership in various US establishment institutions like politicians, universities, media and even church officials are just willfully ignorant, and how many are actually being remunerated to build political sympathy for one of the three most violent Islamic places in the world.

  3. Kilpatrick cites former-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s mission statement as countering Islamic extremism with “rational Enlightenment thought.” Her thought largely coincides with the natural law as affirmed by the Catholic Church.

    But calling for a few supportive footnotes is the deeper difference between inborn natural law and historicist Enlightenment rationalism…

    1. With fideistic and radical Islam, on the one hand, we have female mutilation and jihad (whether terrorist or Fabian-style infiltration), but with Enlightenment reason-without-faith, on the other hand, we now have euthanasia, abortion, and the redefinition of sodomite “marriage”—all as “civil rights” (civil rites?).

    2. Shari’a Law is unable to affirm two distinct but not-opposed freedoms […] the autonomous and Uncreated freedom of God and the autonomous and Created freedom of wo/men (made in His image). To admit to more than one “autonomy” is blasphemy (and, given the unitary mosque-state, treason).

    A tough nut to crack, except within the Incarnation—-which redefines the human person as it also elevates human nature and the innate and universal natural law. Christian anthropology—more than either an eclectic culture from 7th-century Arabia or a parasitic Enlightenment.

    3. Still, the hadith (Bukhari version) seems to hint toward reasoned inquiry: “There is not a child that he or she is born upon this fitrah, this original state of the knowledge of God. And his parents make him a Jew, a Christian, or a Zoroastrian . . . and if they are Muslims, Muslim.” Natural law? Nope—proto-Islam, to be folded into the dictated and timeless Qur’an into an all-engulfing Shari’a. Back to square one!

    4. So, Aayan Hirsi Ali…We should not be put off by here atheism. A slightly earlier Western atheist styled herself a “Christian atheist.” The journalist, Ariani Fallaci, was a regular correspondent with Pope St. John Paul II and emeritus Pope Benedict XVI. She also railed against facile multiculturalism. Of the West’s flacid convictions, its self-hatred, sickness and “moral and intellectual cancer,” she blasted out, “If a Pope [Benedict] and an atheist say the same thing, in that thing there must be something tremendously true.”

    5. As for the difference between religious beliefs and sacramental incorporation into Christ (faith in a Person), any God-willed (?) “plurality or diversity of religions” that departs “not one millimeter from Vatican II” would have to square with this: “Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false conciliatory approach which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its assured genuine meaning” (Decree on Ecumenism, n. 11).

    Adapted from my book: “Beyond Secularism and Jihad? A Triangular Inquiry into the Mosque, the Manger & Modernity” (2012). For an author interview:
    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5602/The_Mosque_the_Manger_and_Modernity.aspx

  4. Multiculturism has entered the Church. W Kilpatrick is likely aware Rep Omar will likely be thought by the Vatican an enlightened example for Catholics. Sandro Magister Mar 18: “A missionary priest who has spent a lifetime on the frontier thousands of miles from Rome writes to me: ‘By now it is no longer possible to doubt where the Church’s leader is taking us: to a point at which one who is alive must of necessity react. How much longer can we remain silent?’ But meanwhile, he has broken the silence. With these sixteen dazzling reflections.
    ‘1. By now it is clear. The Catholic Church is no longer the same as it was before 2013. And I really want to see if someone succeeds in defining what the Catholic Church is today. 3. We who live in mission countries, where there are so many religions more or less in harmony, before doctrine and theories we distinguish ourselves by practical life, custom, laws, habits, duties.
    3. For example, the Muslims do not eat pork, they practice circumcision, they observe the fast of Ramadan, they can divorce and remarry repeatedly, they can have two or more wives, they pray five times a day in a special way on Friday.
    6. But now I as a missionary no longer know precisely what the Catholic Church is. And since I see the pope, the cardinals, the bishops gradually and inexorably tolerating the legitimization of adultery, approving of sodomy, blessing homosexual marriages, admitting the parity of salvation with other religions. To what kind of conversion must I invite others?'”. Magister is obviously impressed probably in agreement. Although the missionary priest ends with words of hope believing Christ still lives in the hearts of the faithful. Although we wonder with deep concern whether today that number is increasing or decreasing.

  5. Yes, this is the new and improved Democratic Party ….. letting down its hair and telling what they REALLY want. Which we knew all along …. multiculturism, confiscation of guns so NOBOdY can defend themselves against it, NO BORDERS (who needs nations anyway), NO Free Speech (it’s too dangerous and people argue and call each other names), and Anti-Semitic (those Jews have always been responsible for everything, everybody knows that).

  6. “In defense of Ilhan Omar, Representative Jan Schakowsky said, “she comes from a different culture.” But that’s precisely the point, isn’t it?”
    ****************

    Anti-Semitism can be much more blatant in other cultures but we’ve had our own issues with it in the West. We mask our brand of anti-Semitism politely & call out folks like Rep. Omar who haven’t yet learned the cultural niceties & protocols.
    I’m disturbed to find anti-Semitism anywhere but like a disease, I prefer when it’s symptoms are obvious & easy to detect -as opposed to the hidden, malingering variety.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. The Multicultural Myth, Anti-Semitism, and Misogyny -

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*