20 April 2007
Dedicated to Nick Park, Wallace & Gromit and all Muslim organisations and associations.
Slightly less painful than giving birth and only slightly less stupid than getting into a cab alone in Sofia and driving to the mountains (not to be done by a woman travelling alone in any country) is walking any distance in a pair of 4 inch heeled shoes.
Pre-middle age has seen me breaking, in the last two years, my lifelong habit of not wearing any shoes in which I could not run away from a racist, a rapist, a drunk and more recently an Islamophobe. My sad fashionista 30 something years are roundly condemned by my flat and dowdy 20s. The flat soled decade was vindicated by my physiotherapist Ali, who in his ‘Manage your pain because the NHS no longer cares’ occupational therapy class a few years back, berated all women who wore heels as exacerbating our bad backs.
These lessons in minor chiropractic and osteopathy came back to me as I walked from Augustinehof Hotel to the Heinrich Böll Stiftung for a roundtable discussion on “Muslim Representation.” A ten minute walk turned into The Odyssey as I walked in lonely agony along central Berlin streets – beautiful streets with galleries and cafes and restoration work to some of the city’s more historic and somewhat decrepit architecture. These were streets in the heart of the German capital, minutes away from its new train station – a feat of such architectural and social significance that even I had seen something about it on the Europhobic British news. Yet I was the only non-white face, walking down a street parallel to one known to be a meeting place of cross cultural experience – Indian and Chinese restaurants sat along side a Turkish convenience store (Turkish by ownership rather than content) and various bars and eateries.
Hobbling along under the dual torture of crippling footwear and kilos of BMEG* reports in my rucksack and obligatory WH Smith carrier bag (travelling gear of the hapless British tourist), I was overtaken by a green hijab clad convert (who, I jealously noted, wore sensible brown pumps). She turned out to be Carla, a participant at the same event from Austria, whose foot pragmatism ensured that she left the same hotel as me much later and arrived at the venue (having got lost) still much earlier. She was to talk about the ‘successful’ model in Austria of Muslim representation – the creation of a single contact partner organisation for government to negotiate with – something that I was about to lambaste as inappropriate and unrepresentative based on the British experience. My networking and social skills are pretty poor as they are – this looked like it was going to be another event where I left with less friends than I turned up with.
I spoke second, and it wasn’t to criticise the Austrian example as I had little inkling of what goes on there, aside from the issues aired by other participants about the one body failing to represent Shias and others. However my history of Muslim organisation from circa 1992, was not on my part to be some sort of stinging retribution of the MCB – a further spat in the internecine warfare that characterised relations between Muslim organisations in the near past. A relevant example was IHRC’s campaign in support of journalist Faisal Bodi after his critique of the one contact partner myth in the UK in The Guardian, led to a letter from Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) media secretary Inayat Bunglawalla calling for his removal as a contributor. In retrospect such spats seem quite healthy, but whilst contemporary can seem painful.
The critique I presented in Berlin was of the more generalised idea and that never ending trend of aspiration amongst Muslim organisations to become the “sole voice” of Muslims in a minority situation – situations that are increasingly characterised in Europe by ethnic, generational and sectarian diversity. Being the “sole voice” is an aspiration in the British experience or experiences of the last 10 -15 years has shown to be an expectation by government not for true representation, but for exactly the unrealistic, inevitably unrepresentative, opportunistic and cynical reasons.
Interestingly, Carla pointed out a historical plus point in the Muslim – Austrian history i.e. the recognition of Islam by law in 1912. To start off my presentation I had to clarify that in the UK, Muslims are not recognised either as National Minority nor under the Race Relations Act 1976 (our most comprehensive legislation to protect minorities, which cover the Jewish, Sikh and to a lesser extent Rastafarian communities). Although new laws against religious discrimination in the workplace had been enacted since end 2003 in order to meet the demand of an EU directive, there had been no government commitment to ensure this legislation had any meaning in practice. There is no legal aid available for victims, and legal costs are generally prohibitive. Unions and employers have been provided little if any training to understand the issues or responsibilities involved in eradicating discrimination based on faith.
It is against this backdrop that the New Labour government has set up a clash of civilisations between it and its claim to represent broader British society, against what it now deems an irksome and no longer inclined to vote for them, and vilifies publicly as violent and terroristic to its core. In that clash, old friends – Muslim associations and organisations to sometimes be so closely linked to the Labour project as to be sometimes indistinguishable from it have been maligned and sidelined, and old foes and those with simply no representative basis have been reinvented as moderates have been promoted as true spokespeople by a government obsessed with socially engineering not a single contact partner but a single form of Islam that Muslims in the UK should and must adhere to.
So, back to 1992, and my presentation, and an attempt, whilst I can’t pretend to be unbiased, at being neutral. 1992 saw the establishment of the now defunct, Muslim Parliament of Great Britain (MPGB), an organisation that spoke (loudly) at government, and which was maliciously described in the press at that time as seeking to segregate Muslims. This was a lie dealt with in the inaugural speech by the MPGB’s then leader, the inspirational, controversial and much missed late Dr. Kalim Siddiqui. “We are for integration,” he boldly stated, “on our [i.e. Muslims’] own terms.”
Running parallel to MPGB was UKIAC (the United Kingdom Islamic Action Committee), that has been looked on in retrospect as a lobby group pressing on Muslim issues particularly measures to protect against religious discrimination and vilification. The understanding is that circa the mid 1990s, the erstwhile Home Secretary and later Tory party leader, Michael Howard, offered those around UKIAC that the government would negotiate with a single Muslim body and that one should be organised. I cannot verify this, but of true it forms an even more salutary lesson for Muslims in minority situations, given that many UKIAC associated figures became part of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) set up in 1997, which was seen by the community as aspiring (rightly or wrongly) to that single body status. MCB is now in that unenviable category of demonised groups that the British government seeks to marginalise, occasionally with the ironic put down that it is unrepresentative – a fact that did not deter it until very recently as proclaiming as exactly the opposite in an attempt to shut out other Muslim organisations from consultation on the basis that THE Muslim representative body already sat next to government.
As I then stated I have found myself recently transformed from critic of the MCB to its defender – it has been maligned for doing the same thing it always did, with government approval. Whatever my differences of which there are many with the roads – ideological and empirical - taken by MCB over the last decade, it is shocking that they have been treated in this manner – a manner then aped by the mainstream press, resulting in e.g. the recent admonition by the tabloid press that in their guidelines for schools, the MCB had made Taliban style demands on the government. The same guidelines were not just endorsed but praised by the Chief Inspector of Schools. As a representative of about 40% of Muslim organisations – the MCB could at least argue that it represented a substantial part of Muslim civil society. To be replaced by the newly created and in vogue Sufi Council of Britain as doyennes of moderation and representation is at best bizarre, particularly as the constituency for the latter seems to consist of government ministers (maybe even 40% of them) and no-one else.
So what are the problems of the single contact partner model. I give my humble thoughts on why such a model, based on the last 10 -15 years of the UK experience this would be a bad way to go.
1. One body only, puts the minority (whomsoever they are) in a position of weakness. Previously thought as a solid way forward – a uniting around one voice concept that demands acceptance by government. Actually, as we have seen it just means it can be easily discarded by discarded when it no longer wants it, needs it or when it may have stopped articulating only those concerns that government is willing to negotiate on or accommodate.
2. The grassroots i.e. not Muslim civil society, whether member associations or not of the single body, but everyday Muslims in whose name representative bodies are supposed to speak, perceive that weakness, and therefore the single body lacks support at the grassroots level.
3. This strengthens the alienation of Muslim grassroots from Muslim civil society – something that mirrors societal dislocation in general from civil society i.e. NGOs, organisations, activists and so on, but (impressionistically) is more acute amongst Muslims.
4. Sectarian and internecine rivalry always, always becomes an issue in the constitution of any single body. Whether its based on schools of thought or lines of thought within schools of thought, or ethnic or just political rivalries, single bodies that usually comprise of voluntary committees, are more prone to being by dint of these problems less about representation and more about (internalised) politics.
5. Trying to have only the one organisation, never works, and instead strengthens government or institutions attempts to minimalise hassle or more sinisterly control agendas through the gatekeeping process. Gatekeeping is where the doors of power are guarded effectively by a department of officer in whose favour access to the influence lie. One of the better examples of consultation vis Muslims in the UK in recent years has been with the Mayor of London whose association with the Muslim Association of Britain and subsequently the British Muslim Inititiave and their various affiliates has shown an engagement with organisations that hold political positions on Iraq and Palestine that resonate better with Muslim constituencies in the UK. How far this is an attempt by the Mayor to be more interested in the representative views of Muslims an dhow far this is simply reflecting his own views on the issues has been mooted. Further the same charges of gatekeeping have been levied at his office over what is still a somewhat exclusive arrangement.
The argument that gatekeeping is about practically carries some weight, but as we have seen with the government example, there is as much and more significant ideological gatekeeping as there is bureaucratic gatekeeping. Either way the idea of representation is illusory.
6. The expectation that a single body, can be representative is (i) simply unrealistic and (ii) lends itself to the politicisation of that body towards “single issues” or to marginalised and external agendas e.g. over the issue of forced marriage. A further example is that of the Board of Deputies of British Jews which has been castigated as ‘pro-Israel’ and unrepresentative of British Jewry by many prominent Jews now seeking to establish another organisation.
What, if any, solutions are there to this situation if a single body – no matter how large its membership or constituency is, is still not able to speak authoritatively on behalf of Muslims or the minority in question?
Government and institutions need to speak to minorities where they are at. It’s that simple. It’s no use pretending that there is some likeminded majority hidden by overbearing civil society and that the lone voice you find to mirror you somehow echoes that. That is the current British experience in extremis. Then of course that means you need to consult more and wider. As details about Operation Contest emerged in 2005, in which the government proposed to socially engineer a differently minded Muslim youth than the one they felt would happen left to its own trajectory, the government simply will not let well enough alone. Muslims, in their opinion need to moulded and this needs to stop and stop right away.
Why?
Just as with the single body solution, it is counterproductive, but more importantly it is a moral question that requires a definitive answer. It is not the place of governments to determine what a minority is, nor create the minority it wants through interference, use of fear tactics, favouritism and manipulation.
Given the reasons why a single body option would be problematic for a minority, a cynic could argue that they would be the very reasons why a government would choose that route. Superficially they are seen as engaging with the community, and a majority that have little or no exposure to the minority will see it either as good measure or indeed excessive capitulation. Resonant of the days of the Raj, a government could using this method, divide and rule. If the single body cannot deliver it can be replaced by another. There is no recognised clamour at the gall and injustice of such a move.
Are there any bad reasons then for government to do this? Assuming for one moment that (some) governments may have varying degrees of ethical intent, they may actually be concerned that their one contact partner, does not have grassroots validity. It will additionally mean that it will have no effect and ultimately legitimacy amongst the people, they are supposed to be helping government serve. By encouraging one organisation over others, only increases factionalism - again maybe that serves the more cynical interests of government, however in the long run that undermines social cohesion and effective integration. Finally and more practically still is the fact that increasingly larger groups of disaffected people cannot reached. Disaffected people in this narrative are not terrorist to be feared – they are however voters and activists. Something government still need to be wary of, even in the UK.
IHRC’s research on British Muslims’ Expectations of the Government regarding political representation is telling, and I have dealt with it elsewhere (e.g. the article Citizen Ali in New Politics ) , but the normative issues I have outlined above form a large part of the narrative that was unveiled by this research. Muslims in the UK want to participate and they see mainstream political representation, particularly in parliament as the way forward. They are sceptical about the current state of Muslim representation whether at the level of civil society or in parliament. In fact many see the representation of Muslims in parliament as nominal and without any real power. If in its effort to negotiate with a minority, a government cannot or will not understand or respect that minority’s commitment to democratic processes and wishes instead to fix a model of representation on it that it would not subscribe to for other citizens, then we need to look at that model as, at best, inappropriate.
No offence to anyone, but it is time to rethink the single contact partner model, not export it elsewhere.
Me
By my daughter
About Me
- Arzu Merali
- I am one of the founders of the Islamic Human Rights Commission . I was also editor in chief of Palestine Internationalist . I was formerly a journalist, and still write on occasion.
Showing posts with label governance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label governance. Show all posts
Thursday, 26 April 2007
Muslims in 21st Century Britain: Assimilation or Extermination?
A powerful response to Tony Blair's August 2005 speech on Muslims by my colleague Fahad Ansari, first published in The Link magazine.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Twenty First Century was supposed to herald in a new era of freedom, liberty and human rights throughout the world. World leaders and politicians swore that the mistakes and atrocities of the Twentieth Century would never be repeated and that a new epoch of tolerance and co-existence would exist irrespective of differences in race, gender or creed.
For Muslims living in Twenty-First Century Britain, the reality is a far bitterer pill to swallow. Since the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the events of September 11 2001, Muslims in Britain have found themselves under severe persecution by the British Government, Police Force and other state institutions. Draconian anti-terrorism measures such as internment without charge, control orders and house arrest are normally associated with Burma and Zimbabwe. Daily stop and search of tens of thousands of Muslims and hundreds of arrests of innocent Muslims have effectively demonised the Muslim community in Britain as “the enemy within”. This, in turn with wholly irresponsible media coverage, has lead to a rapidly increasing level of resentment and intolerance of the community by the wider society, inevitably assisting the huge upsurge in Islamophobic attacks in Britain, particularly in the wake of the London bombings.
Prime Minister Blair’s recent proposals of 5 August 2005 will achieve nothing but further alienation and marginalisation of the British Muslim community.
Extremism
Blair’s proposals are targeted at those he describes as “extremists” and their various networks: “extremist websites”, “extremist bookshops”, “extremist centres”, “extremist organisations” and “extremist places of worship”. While no precise definition of extremism is given, in Blair’s speech at the Labour Party national conference of 16 July 2005 he outlined what he called the “barbaric ideas” of Muslim extremists:
“They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations.”
Given their widespread currency within the mainstream media, it is important to carefully examine more closely these ideas being labelled as “extremist”.
a) Elimination of Israel
The idea that Israel should be eliminated is portrayed as a violent and hate-filled desire, yet in practical effect this type of accusation has been used by pro-Israeli activists and advisors against anyone, including many Muslims who seek and / or struggle for the liberation of Palestine, many of whom advocate a one-state solution, be it as one secular Palestine, a bi-national Israeli state or indeed a theocratic state or some other form of religious state including khilafah and religious democracy. The solution of the Palestinian problem is warranted by both human conscience and the dictates of international law, and is a passion shared by most Muslims. This in no way means the elimination of Jews or the Jewish people, yet increasingly this charge has been used by Zionist activists against all those who would seek justice in the Middle East from whichever background they hail. The one-state solution idea is shared not just by many Muslims but also by numerous academics, journalists and international lawyers from a variety of faith and non-faith backgrounds.
It is alarming that what was once the extreme rhetoric of the most extreme right-wing Zionist groups and advocates is now being espoused by the British Prime Minister. Labelling Muslims in this way not only demonises them further in the public psyche but condemns a very legitimate and normative aspiration for liberation as unacceptable.
b) The Withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries
No Muslim group, not even al-Qaida itself, demands that all Westerners be removed from Muslim countries. What the majority of Muslims in Britain and across the world do demand is that all foreign occupying troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan and that American military bases in Saudi Arabia be removed. Again, not an extremist idea but a requirement of international law. Mr Blair’s claims that such demands are made “irrespective of the wishes of the people and Government” is particularly absurd as these very people are forced to live under authoritarian dictatorial regimes where freedom of political expression is denied.
c) The establishment of shariah law in the Arab world en route to one Caliphate of all Muslim nations
The establishment of Islamic law or shariah – which has many different guises – in the Arab world is a wholly legitimate. Although Western governments and many of their citizens may disagree with some elements of Islamic law, respect for democracy dictates that those who yearn for Islamic law in their countries should be entitled to campaign for it. The same applies to the goal of uniting all Muslim nations under one Caliphate. How does this differ from the process that created the United States of America or the European Union? By condemning the desire of Muslims to have one legitimately elected leader, where does that leave the Pope’s position across the Catholic world?
It appears very clear that when Mr Blair condemns extremism, in reality he is condemning opposing oppression, criticism of British and American foreign policy and all forms of political Islam.
Deporting Extremists
With this in mind, it becomes very disturbing to hear Mr Blair speak of deporting foreign nationals who have any active engagement with extremist websites, bookshops, centres, networks and particular organisations of concern. There has been a very longstanding and admirable policy of academic freedom within the Muslim world meaning Islamic bookstores stock publications from a variety of writers who may hold opposing viewpoints on specific matters. Jihad and politics are integral parts of Islam and to attempt to silence bookstores, websites and organisations who speak of such issues is nothing less than an attempt to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of education.
Mr Blair later in his speech refers to the proposed new power to order the closure of places of worship that are used as centres for fomenting extremism. Once again, it is to be assumed from Mr Blair’s definition of extremism that any criticism of foreign policy or discussion of political Islam in a mosque could result in it being shut down. This removal of politics from the mosque will only result in such topics being forced underground.
Condoning or Glorifying Terrorism
Justice is an extremely important aspect of Islam and striving against injustice and oppression is a duty upon all Muslims, irrespective of the faith of the parties involved. Consequently, Muslims constantly and consistently campaign for the rights of oppressed people around the world, from Palestine to Kashmir, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Chechnya to Burma and from Sudan to Afghanistan and make daily prayers to aid the resistance movements in those places. Muslims recognise the legitimate rights of oppressed people to use force where necessary to fight oppression. For this to be an offence is of great.
By specifically stating that this law will be applied to terrorism anywhere and not just in the UK, Mr Blair is making an offence to support action regarded as legitimate under international law. It is assumed that the definition of terrorism used in the Terrorism Act 2000 would also be adopted here. This definition is extremely broad and vague and potentially outlaws any form of political activism. This proposed offence is a further attempt to stifle support for legitimate resistance movements around the world.
Extension of detention without charge of terror suspects
The proposal to extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention from 14 days to 3 months is to be condemned outright. Already since 9-11, almost 800 people have been arrested under anti-terror legislation, the vast majority of them being Muslims. Of these, just over 100 have actually been charged with any offence with only 3 Muslims convicted. In addition, tens of thousands of innocent Muslims have been regularly stopped and searched in the streets. Figures released by the Home Office in July 2004 revealed a 302 per cent rise in the number of Asian people being stopped and searched by police. The Home Office report, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, showed that Asians suffered the highest increases in stop and searches under the Terrorism Act 2000 powers, rising from 744 in 2001-02 to 2,989 in 2002-03. Although the religion of those stopped is not recorded, the majority of these Asians come from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities who are predominantly Muslim in faith. A recent report from the Metropolitan Police Authority stated that the current stop and search practice has create deeper racial tensions and has severed valuable sources of community information and criminal intelligence.
Proscription
The most frightening statement by Mr Blair was that the government would proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the successor organisation of Al Muhajiroun and that it would also attempt to widen the grounds of proscription. Although Hizb-ut-Tahrir has frequently clashed with other members of the Muslim community on various issues, it is a non-violent organisation which has routinely condemned violence and terrorism.
What is of particular concern is the grounds for such proscription and whether these will constitute the criteria for future proscription in any new anti-terror bill. If Hizb-ut-Tahrir is being proscribed for speaking out against British foreign policy, then what of the 2 million British people who marched against the Iraq invasion? If Hizb-ut-Tahrir is to be proscribed for criticising despotic rulers throughout the Muslim world, then how will the Government deal with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other NGOs who routinely condemn these regimes? If it is for calling for the uniting of Muslim lands under one Caliphate that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is being proscribed, then how will the Government deal with all the other Muslims in Britain who share this belief? If the Government is prepared to ban an organisation that preaches non-violence, how will it respond to groups that recognise the legitimate right of oppressed people to use force in self-defence against aggression? There is not one instance in British history of a non-violent group ever being proscribed. Even Sinn Féin, at the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, was never proscribed. To proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahrir is to follow the tradition of dictatorial regimes throughout the world which do not tolerate political dissent and proscribe non-violent organisations with alternative viewpoints.
List of Foreign Imams to be Banned from Britain
Such a move is unhelpful and likely to cause even more alienation and resentment as it will be perceived as censorship; the Muslim community will be prohibited from listening to Imams who may criticise British foreign policy or call for political unity among Muslims. In drawing up such a list, Mr Blair is unclear on whether he intends to consult with British Muslim leaders or with leaders of Muslim countries Neither is satisfactory. Blair consultations with so-called British Muslim leaders have so far been nothing more than a rubber-stamping process involving hand-selected ‘yes-men’ who do not represent the Muslim community. The leaders of Muslim countries, on the other hand, are by and large despotic rulers and dictators who have stifled all political dissent in their own countries.
Conclusion
It is with great alarm that the Muslim community in Britain is viewing these latest proposals of the Government to assimilate it into the wider society. Basic Islamic principles and values of both a personal and political nature are being demonised and stigmatised to such an extent that the very definition of the word ‘Islam’ is at stake. Such an ostensible loathing for ‘the Other’ must not be seen as assimilation but extermination in the same way it was seen in Nazi Europe, Rwanda and the Balkans.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Twenty First Century was supposed to herald in a new era of freedom, liberty and human rights throughout the world. World leaders and politicians swore that the mistakes and atrocities of the Twentieth Century would never be repeated and that a new epoch of tolerance and co-existence would exist irrespective of differences in race, gender or creed.
For Muslims living in Twenty-First Century Britain, the reality is a far bitterer pill to swallow. Since the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the events of September 11 2001, Muslims in Britain have found themselves under severe persecution by the British Government, Police Force and other state institutions. Draconian anti-terrorism measures such as internment without charge, control orders and house arrest are normally associated with Burma and Zimbabwe. Daily stop and search of tens of thousands of Muslims and hundreds of arrests of innocent Muslims have effectively demonised the Muslim community in Britain as “the enemy within”. This, in turn with wholly irresponsible media coverage, has lead to a rapidly increasing level of resentment and intolerance of the community by the wider society, inevitably assisting the huge upsurge in Islamophobic attacks in Britain, particularly in the wake of the London bombings.
Prime Minister Blair’s recent proposals of 5 August 2005 will achieve nothing but further alienation and marginalisation of the British Muslim community.
Extremism
Blair’s proposals are targeted at those he describes as “extremists” and their various networks: “extremist websites”, “extremist bookshops”, “extremist centres”, “extremist organisations” and “extremist places of worship”. While no precise definition of extremism is given, in Blair’s speech at the Labour Party national conference of 16 July 2005 he outlined what he called the “barbaric ideas” of Muslim extremists:
“They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations.”
Given their widespread currency within the mainstream media, it is important to carefully examine more closely these ideas being labelled as “extremist”.
a) Elimination of Israel
The idea that Israel should be eliminated is portrayed as a violent and hate-filled desire, yet in practical effect this type of accusation has been used by pro-Israeli activists and advisors against anyone, including many Muslims who seek and / or struggle for the liberation of Palestine, many of whom advocate a one-state solution, be it as one secular Palestine, a bi-national Israeli state or indeed a theocratic state or some other form of religious state including khilafah and religious democracy. The solution of the Palestinian problem is warranted by both human conscience and the dictates of international law, and is a passion shared by most Muslims. This in no way means the elimination of Jews or the Jewish people, yet increasingly this charge has been used by Zionist activists against all those who would seek justice in the Middle East from whichever background they hail. The one-state solution idea is shared not just by many Muslims but also by numerous academics, journalists and international lawyers from a variety of faith and non-faith backgrounds.
It is alarming that what was once the extreme rhetoric of the most extreme right-wing Zionist groups and advocates is now being espoused by the British Prime Minister. Labelling Muslims in this way not only demonises them further in the public psyche but condemns a very legitimate and normative aspiration for liberation as unacceptable.
b) The Withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries
No Muslim group, not even al-Qaida itself, demands that all Westerners be removed from Muslim countries. What the majority of Muslims in Britain and across the world do demand is that all foreign occupying troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan and that American military bases in Saudi Arabia be removed. Again, not an extremist idea but a requirement of international law. Mr Blair’s claims that such demands are made “irrespective of the wishes of the people and Government” is particularly absurd as these very people are forced to live under authoritarian dictatorial regimes where freedom of political expression is denied.
c) The establishment of shariah law in the Arab world en route to one Caliphate of all Muslim nations
The establishment of Islamic law or shariah – which has many different guises – in the Arab world is a wholly legitimate. Although Western governments and many of their citizens may disagree with some elements of Islamic law, respect for democracy dictates that those who yearn for Islamic law in their countries should be entitled to campaign for it. The same applies to the goal of uniting all Muslim nations under one Caliphate. How does this differ from the process that created the United States of America or the European Union? By condemning the desire of Muslims to have one legitimately elected leader, where does that leave the Pope’s position across the Catholic world?
It appears very clear that when Mr Blair condemns extremism, in reality he is condemning opposing oppression, criticism of British and American foreign policy and all forms of political Islam.
Deporting Extremists
With this in mind, it becomes very disturbing to hear Mr Blair speak of deporting foreign nationals who have any active engagement with extremist websites, bookshops, centres, networks and particular organisations of concern. There has been a very longstanding and admirable policy of academic freedom within the Muslim world meaning Islamic bookstores stock publications from a variety of writers who may hold opposing viewpoints on specific matters. Jihad and politics are integral parts of Islam and to attempt to silence bookstores, websites and organisations who speak of such issues is nothing less than an attempt to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of education.
Mr Blair later in his speech refers to the proposed new power to order the closure of places of worship that are used as centres for fomenting extremism. Once again, it is to be assumed from Mr Blair’s definition of extremism that any criticism of foreign policy or discussion of political Islam in a mosque could result in it being shut down. This removal of politics from the mosque will only result in such topics being forced underground.
Condoning or Glorifying Terrorism
Justice is an extremely important aspect of Islam and striving against injustice and oppression is a duty upon all Muslims, irrespective of the faith of the parties involved. Consequently, Muslims constantly and consistently campaign for the rights of oppressed people around the world, from Palestine to Kashmir, from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Chechnya to Burma and from Sudan to Afghanistan and make daily prayers to aid the resistance movements in those places. Muslims recognise the legitimate rights of oppressed people to use force where necessary to fight oppression. For this to be an offence is of great.
By specifically stating that this law will be applied to terrorism anywhere and not just in the UK, Mr Blair is making an offence to support action regarded as legitimate under international law. It is assumed that the definition of terrorism used in the Terrorism Act 2000 would also be adopted here. This definition is extremely broad and vague and potentially outlaws any form of political activism. This proposed offence is a further attempt to stifle support for legitimate resistance movements around the world.
Extension of detention without charge of terror suspects
The proposal to extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention from 14 days to 3 months is to be condemned outright. Already since 9-11, almost 800 people have been arrested under anti-terror legislation, the vast majority of them being Muslims. Of these, just over 100 have actually been charged with any offence with only 3 Muslims convicted. In addition, tens of thousands of innocent Muslims have been regularly stopped and searched in the streets. Figures released by the Home Office in July 2004 revealed a 302 per cent rise in the number of Asian people being stopped and searched by police. The Home Office report, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System, showed that Asians suffered the highest increases in stop and searches under the Terrorism Act 2000 powers, rising from 744 in 2001-02 to 2,989 in 2002-03. Although the religion of those stopped is not recorded, the majority of these Asians come from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities who are predominantly Muslim in faith. A recent report from the Metropolitan Police Authority stated that the current stop and search practice has create deeper racial tensions and has severed valuable sources of community information and criminal intelligence.
Proscription
The most frightening statement by Mr Blair was that the government would proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the successor organisation of Al Muhajiroun and that it would also attempt to widen the grounds of proscription. Although Hizb-ut-Tahrir has frequently clashed with other members of the Muslim community on various issues, it is a non-violent organisation which has routinely condemned violence and terrorism.
What is of particular concern is the grounds for such proscription and whether these will constitute the criteria for future proscription in any new anti-terror bill. If Hizb-ut-Tahrir is being proscribed for speaking out against British foreign policy, then what of the 2 million British people who marched against the Iraq invasion? If Hizb-ut-Tahrir is to be proscribed for criticising despotic rulers throughout the Muslim world, then how will the Government deal with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other NGOs who routinely condemn these regimes? If it is for calling for the uniting of Muslim lands under one Caliphate that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is being proscribed, then how will the Government deal with all the other Muslims in Britain who share this belief? If the Government is prepared to ban an organisation that preaches non-violence, how will it respond to groups that recognise the legitimate right of oppressed people to use force in self-defence against aggression? There is not one instance in British history of a non-violent group ever being proscribed. Even Sinn Féin, at the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, was never proscribed. To proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahrir is to follow the tradition of dictatorial regimes throughout the world which do not tolerate political dissent and proscribe non-violent organisations with alternative viewpoints.
List of Foreign Imams to be Banned from Britain
Such a move is unhelpful and likely to cause even more alienation and resentment as it will be perceived as censorship; the Muslim community will be prohibited from listening to Imams who may criticise British foreign policy or call for political unity among Muslims. In drawing up such a list, Mr Blair is unclear on whether he intends to consult with British Muslim leaders or with leaders of Muslim countries Neither is satisfactory. Blair consultations with so-called British Muslim leaders have so far been nothing more than a rubber-stamping process involving hand-selected ‘yes-men’ who do not represent the Muslim community. The leaders of Muslim countries, on the other hand, are by and large despotic rulers and dictators who have stifled all political dissent in their own countries.
Conclusion
It is with great alarm that the Muslim community in Britain is viewing these latest proposals of the Government to assimilate it into the wider society. Basic Islamic principles and values of both a personal and political nature are being demonised and stigmatised to such an extent that the very definition of the word ‘Islam’ is at stake. Such an ostensible loathing for ‘the Other’ must not be seen as assimilation but extermination in the same way it was seen in Nazi Europe, Rwanda and the Balkans.
Aliens in their own country
An opinion piece by the IHRC Chair, Massoud Shadjareh from the Thursday April 1, 2004 edition of The Guardian.
Seyf's a smart-looking guy, Mediterranean looking. If you're clued up about these things you'd guess he's of Turkish origin. Buying milk at his local supermarket he and his American flatmate of Pakistani origin were approached by a loud, white English shopper, who yelled in the middle of the dairy aisle: "Are you terrorists?"
This was an example of what passes as humour in Middle England at the moment. Before she burst out laughing and carried on what turned into a tirade, other shoppers stood by, nervously looking for staff and indicating that the two Muslim lads might be trouble.
Forget about the latest arrests around London. Forget about police profiling of Muslims (and of that there's plenty) - the general public now categorises all things Muslim as terror-orientated. Why? It's easy to blame victims of prejudice for their demonisation - it's a practice with a long pedigree. But the unending calls on Muslims, from rightwing shock jocks to former archbishops of Canterbury, to condemn terrorism reveal a level of conditionality that no other community has been asked to bear.
Throw into this mix the continuous police raids and arrests since 9/11 under various pieces of anti-terrorist legislation, the fanfare of media attention when Muslims of various origins are arrested and the deafening silence when most (some 450 out of 540) are released. Add the recent analysis of stop and search figures that shows a disproportionately high number of the 32,100 people who were stopped and searched in the last year (or more accurately 71,100 people when you take into account the misreporting of some police forces, according to Statewatch) were of Asian origin. Do not forget to include Islamophobic media coverage of an increasingly anti-Muslim "war on terror", and stir. The result?
British non-Muslims are scared of Muslims; they're angry with them and they're paranoid about the threat they perceive from Muslims ready to blow them up. British Muslims are scared of the backlash against them from non-Muslims. They're also paranoid about their safety from wider society, the security services and the other Muslims that they are told are out there waiting to blow everybody up.
At either end of this polarisation we are seeing a level of alienation that bodes ill for British society. For the Muslim part, their sense of grievance has to be taken on board by the government, its institutions and the media in a meaningful way. It's taken two years of lobbying the Met about stereotyping, but at last, yesterday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke's statement to the press was at pains to make clear that the arrests and their focus should not cast aspersions on the Muslim community. Yet every breaking news story carried the label "Islamic terrorists" and the addition of the description "British of Pakistani origin". It may sell today's papers but it is ultimately crass vilification.
It is also at the heart of the growing anger among Muslim youth. Born and bred British, their citizenship is always conditional. When Kriss Akabussi won athletics medals he wasn't referred to as a British Christian of Nigerian origin. Yet Muslims are always alien by description - their religion and ethnicity used in reporting further edges them to the boundaries of society.
This isn't even a post-9/11 concern. After the Oldham riots in 2001, we heard that long-term unemployment or poor career opportunities, fuelled by racism and Islamophobia, in turn fuelled pain and anger among the young. Three years on, professional affluent Muslims, whose lives had seen little, if any, of the social deprivation and societal exclusion that the Cantle report identified, can tell of discrimination and hatred levelled against them.
They see an older Muslim leadership panic under the strain of negativity. While younger organisations such as the London Muslim Coalition called on mosques to pray for peace for all in the wake of the horror of Madrid, the Muslim Council of Britain called on mosques to report any suspicions they had about anything. It's the difference between being a part of society, however marginalised, and perpetuating the idea that you are an unruly guest, your stay determined by different conditions than for everyone else. You don't have to be disaffected youth to see the anomalies and feel the isolation.
For all the Muslim communities' faults - and we, like all other communities and individuals, have many - our empathy, often inspired by our faith, with the deprived and oppressed is not one of them. To want an end to injustice against Palestinians doesn't make you a terrorist, opposing the war against Iraq or calling on Russia to withdraw from Chechnya doesn't make you an extremist of any class. Yet when British Muslims participate in demonstrations and leafleting - against their government's participation in occupations of Muslim lands - this is seen as more evidence of inherent detachment from British mores and, worse still, attachment to potential, if not actual, terrorist causes.
The late Sulayman Zain ul-Abedin, who was the first to be tried and found not guilty of offences under the Terrorism Act of 2000, found his reading material used as "evidence" against him. In a letter to some mosques last year the Charity Commission is alleged to have asked some not to allow prayers to be recited for Palestine as this was "political". So, as a British Muslim you can't act on what you believe in, however just; you mustn't read about it and you can't even pray for it.
Seyf is a volunteer at our offices. Formerly a journalist in Turkey, he is seeking asylum, having been tortured by police for his views on Turkish foreign policy. Some of his colleagues are serving sentences for possessing reading material deemed seditious. Civil society can only save Britain from becoming a country that people seek asylum from, when its institutions and its media realise that the alienation of Muslims and many others is neither self-imposed or imported from abroad.
· Massoud Shadjareh is chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission
Seyf's a smart-looking guy, Mediterranean looking. If you're clued up about these things you'd guess he's of Turkish origin. Buying milk at his local supermarket he and his American flatmate of Pakistani origin were approached by a loud, white English shopper, who yelled in the middle of the dairy aisle: "Are you terrorists?"
This was an example of what passes as humour in Middle England at the moment. Before she burst out laughing and carried on what turned into a tirade, other shoppers stood by, nervously looking for staff and indicating that the two Muslim lads might be trouble.
Forget about the latest arrests around London. Forget about police profiling of Muslims (and of that there's plenty) - the general public now categorises all things Muslim as terror-orientated. Why? It's easy to blame victims of prejudice for their demonisation - it's a practice with a long pedigree. But the unending calls on Muslims, from rightwing shock jocks to former archbishops of Canterbury, to condemn terrorism reveal a level of conditionality that no other community has been asked to bear.
Throw into this mix the continuous police raids and arrests since 9/11 under various pieces of anti-terrorist legislation, the fanfare of media attention when Muslims of various origins are arrested and the deafening silence when most (some 450 out of 540) are released. Add the recent analysis of stop and search figures that shows a disproportionately high number of the 32,100 people who were stopped and searched in the last year (or more accurately 71,100 people when you take into account the misreporting of some police forces, according to Statewatch) were of Asian origin. Do not forget to include Islamophobic media coverage of an increasingly anti-Muslim "war on terror", and stir. The result?
British non-Muslims are scared of Muslims; they're angry with them and they're paranoid about the threat they perceive from Muslims ready to blow them up. British Muslims are scared of the backlash against them from non-Muslims. They're also paranoid about their safety from wider society, the security services and the other Muslims that they are told are out there waiting to blow everybody up.
At either end of this polarisation we are seeing a level of alienation that bodes ill for British society. For the Muslim part, their sense of grievance has to be taken on board by the government, its institutions and the media in a meaningful way. It's taken two years of lobbying the Met about stereotyping, but at last, yesterday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke's statement to the press was at pains to make clear that the arrests and their focus should not cast aspersions on the Muslim community. Yet every breaking news story carried the label "Islamic terrorists" and the addition of the description "British of Pakistani origin". It may sell today's papers but it is ultimately crass vilification.
It is also at the heart of the growing anger among Muslim youth. Born and bred British, their citizenship is always conditional. When Kriss Akabussi won athletics medals he wasn't referred to as a British Christian of Nigerian origin. Yet Muslims are always alien by description - their religion and ethnicity used in reporting further edges them to the boundaries of society.
This isn't even a post-9/11 concern. After the Oldham riots in 2001, we heard that long-term unemployment or poor career opportunities, fuelled by racism and Islamophobia, in turn fuelled pain and anger among the young. Three years on, professional affluent Muslims, whose lives had seen little, if any, of the social deprivation and societal exclusion that the Cantle report identified, can tell of discrimination and hatred levelled against them.
They see an older Muslim leadership panic under the strain of negativity. While younger organisations such as the London Muslim Coalition called on mosques to pray for peace for all in the wake of the horror of Madrid, the Muslim Council of Britain called on mosques to report any suspicions they had about anything. It's the difference between being a part of society, however marginalised, and perpetuating the idea that you are an unruly guest, your stay determined by different conditions than for everyone else. You don't have to be disaffected youth to see the anomalies and feel the isolation.
For all the Muslim communities' faults - and we, like all other communities and individuals, have many - our empathy, often inspired by our faith, with the deprived and oppressed is not one of them. To want an end to injustice against Palestinians doesn't make you a terrorist, opposing the war against Iraq or calling on Russia to withdraw from Chechnya doesn't make you an extremist of any class. Yet when British Muslims participate in demonstrations and leafleting - against their government's participation in occupations of Muslim lands - this is seen as more evidence of inherent detachment from British mores and, worse still, attachment to potential, if not actual, terrorist causes.
The late Sulayman Zain ul-Abedin, who was the first to be tried and found not guilty of offences under the Terrorism Act of 2000, found his reading material used as "evidence" against him. In a letter to some mosques last year the Charity Commission is alleged to have asked some not to allow prayers to be recited for Palestine as this was "political". So, as a British Muslim you can't act on what you believe in, however just; you mustn't read about it and you can't even pray for it.
Seyf is a volunteer at our offices. Formerly a journalist in Turkey, he is seeking asylum, having been tortured by police for his views on Turkish foreign policy. Some of his colleagues are serving sentences for possessing reading material deemed seditious. Civil society can only save Britain from becoming a country that people seek asylum from, when its institutions and its media realise that the alienation of Muslims and many others is neither self-imposed or imported from abroad.
· Massoud Shadjareh is chair of the Islamic Human Rights Commission
My Lobby Ran Off With Kilroy, or Why Muslims Shouldn’t Emulate Zionist Politics
First published in Q-News in December 2001. This still resonates.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone had the inclination to inscribe the events of the last few weeks it would make good theatre. The burning Muslim desire to appear on Kilroy, the BBC’s flagship morning chat show, provides enough material for any aspiring comedy playwright. Only it wouldn’t be fiction - just another sad indictment of the British Muslim mentality, exceptional only in its failure not to fail.
An American student I met earlier this year who was explaining some of the ways he was paying his way through college, alleged as many have done that he was paid to appear on Kilroy. Of course, I can’t prove this. This American could just be a dastardly liar, but he seemed pretty convincing. All he allegedly had to do was go to a debate on single mothers and wax lyrical about how he could never date one (and then maybe change his mind). As he put it, “It beats filling shelves at Sainsbury’s.”
This isn’t new. The BBC’s Vanessa show was scrapped a few years back over a similar scandal. This type of TV is superficial and insincere. Throw in the fact that Robert Kilroy-Silk is an established Islamophobe and you could ask quite rightly, why Muslims of any shape, size, political or spiritual hue should want to appear on it? Kilroy-Silk’s well publicised views on Islam and Muslims can be described as misleading. I would just call him a bigot. In the Daily Express in the mid-90s he proudly declared that Muslims, “are backward and evil, and if it is being racist to say so then I must be and happy and proud to be so.” Just to clarify matters: Kilroy hates us. Unfortunately, the debacle surrounding Omar Bakri Mohammed’s almost appearance on the show illustrates the all too familiar pattern of British Muslim activism self-destructing and not realising it’s blown its head off.
At the end of October, organisations began receiving calls from Kilroy researchers asking for names of victims who have suffered from the anti-Muslim backlash in the wake of September 11. Those of us who have been boycotting Kilroy told them politely where to go. Unfortunately not all organisations did. Soon emails appeared from new brothers on the bloc, set to challenge Islamophobia by…asking for people to help Kilroy with information? Sending people to attend his show? Then Kilroy decided to throw Omar Bakri Mohammed a line and do a show on British Muslims willing to fight for the Taliban. Hereon ensued the farce.
More emails went around in their thousands, now urging Muslims to lobby the Kilroy team to drop Omar Bakri. Hundreds of protests flooded the production team, stating that Omar Bakri is unrepresentative and that ‘moderates’ should be allowed to speak instead. The Kilory team refused to budge. A demonstration was even organised outside the BBC protesting the choice of guest.
In the hysteria the organisations involved seemed to forget that Kilroy and his team didn’t care if ‘moderate’ Muslims attended their show or stood outside and protested. The programme is Kilroy produced. It is not an objective space within which debate can be heard, it is all about Kilroy making his point. If he thinks Muslims are evil, that’s the point he will make whether his guest is Omar Bakri or Mary Poppins. As regards the protests, Kilroy published an article days later decrying the campaign as evidence that wider society needs to “defend our freedom of speech from those calling themselves moderates demanding tolerance - but only for themselves.”
As it happened more sensible voices prevailed. A brother persuaded Omar Bakri to boycott the show. The stories regarding his no show are many, but he himself states that he received death threats from other Muslims should he appear on the show. However marginal Omar Bakri Mohammed’s views are (and I for one don’t endorse them) , this whole debacle shows that we have a long and sorry journey to make.
Just as ten years ago the Muslim mantra was unity (between Shias and Sunnis against non-Muslims, between Sunnis and Sunnis against Shias and / or Wahabis, and vice versa, Urdu speakers against non-Urdu speakers and so on…), this time round we’re all singing ‘lobby.’ The recent media monitoring exercises are a case in point.
The recent efforts have been phenomenal- a fantastic achievement for the community, and those responsible for it should be proud. When Julie Birchill decided to vent her anti-Muslim vitriol in the Guardian in August, neither she nor her editors expected the complaints that jammed the lines for the next few days. Possibly for the first time ever it was Muslims one, Birchill nil.
So what is wrong? My concern - and this is a personal concern - is that we are rushing headlong into an enterprise without any thought regarding the problems of the methodologies we use. Whilst we clearly hate the racism and injustice that is Zionism, we seem to admire the achievements of the Zionist lobby. We are creating an inverse set of aims i.e. to create pressure on governments, the media etc. to promote Muslim ‘issues’ regardless. As appealing as this sounds, this is not necessarily a good thing. Should we, for example, defend Muslims when they are persecuting others be they Muslim or non-Muslim? It’s one thing to lobby for support of the Palestinians in the intifada, but how about a so-called Muslim government like Indonesia? Campaigning to support Muslims murdered by Christian militias in the Spice Islands makes ethical sense, but campaigning to support the Indonesian government is not the same. These are issues which Muslims have to address now. Principle or pragmatism?
As seductive as the pragmatic approach may be, we need to re-evaluate what our activism is for. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Kilroy-Silk was one of many who stated that Islam was the new enemy to Western hegemony. As recently as September this year Kilroy was on his anti-Muslim bandwagon condemning Palestinians as terrorists and describing Israeli atrocities as the odd ‘silly thing.’ Is the sole purpose of our campaigning really to change his mind? Even if this was realistic, are we just to accept the status quo and lobby for a change in its balance towards Muslims?
Creating strategic alliances with players in the race industry is another road we seem to be following. Coalitions based on principles can be excellent. Working with known Zionists can only be disastrous. Campaigning against Islamophobia when your advisor, or patron or even the chairman believes anti-Zionist campaigning needs to be outlawed can only be successful at the price of the oppressed elsewhere.
If we follow blindly the experiences of the Zionist lobby by writing thank you letters to inimical journalists for writing less offensive articles (as recently happened with Polly Toynbee), or ask production teams to only listen to certain Muslims, we may have a media and government in 50 years time ready to promote the views of the most persistent Muslim activists as policy. We may too also have a self-interested community that perpetuates the most grotesque injustices against its own people: excluding those who disagree with its aims to fend for themselves as unrecognised and unrepresented voices. This is where the Zionist lobby is at today. Is this where we want to be tomorrow?
There are principles at stake here. This is where it gets theological. The Qur’an clearly enjoins Muslims to stand up for justice even if it means bearing witness against oneself . Further it demands that we stand up and fight for those who are oppressed regardless of whether they are Muslim or not, or who it is that oppresses them. Some Muslim organisations seem to think the quest for justice is secondary to the quest for influence and political power. There may seem to be no tested British alternatives to the Zionist example. However, why should there have to be? Why can’t Muslims make a path for themselves - changing the rules instead of just playing by them? Steve Biko - who gave his life in the struggle to end apartheid - famously said, “The greatest weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” We have to stop thinking and acting in ways that have been determined by those who oppress others. If we don’t the ‘best’ we can achieve is to become oppressors in their mould.
Next time any Muslim is invited onto an Islamophobic platform, we should protest against the platform not their choice of guest. Argue with the guest not to attend. Don’t give in to the ‘extremist - moderate’ pigeon holing. Making death threats and denying multiple voices is not moderation. Realpolitik shows that today’s moderates are tomorrow’s extremists. Next time lets show that Muslim diversity is a strength, and that we can debate and allow people to air views that we disagree with even if the likes of Kilroy can’t.
The South African example is one that we could aspire to. The role of Muslim activism was integral to the fall of apartheid. Muslims gave their lives in the struggle. Many fought the battle on the basis of Quranic injunction, not ANC instructions. These men and women like Imam Haroon, were willing to die for justice for peoples who at the end of the day were mainly non-Muslim. This clearly didn’t and hasn’t until today served any political interests of the Muslim community. These people gave their lives because it was an Islamic cause, and it was a religious duty on them.
There are other reasons for not following the Zionist example. Ask a rabbi like Yisroel Weiss who attended the World Conference Against Racism as part of the Islamic Human Rights Commission team. When he described why his group, Neturei Karta, were so vehemently opposed to Zionism and the state of Israel, he responded thus, “Zionism not only kills people, it kills the soul.” Spiritual values are ethical values. Having those ethics and values means that you can’t employ any and all tactics in the pursuit of the truth. To do so negates the truth you aspire to.
Standing for principle sometimes merits no immediate results. What then, you may ask, is the point? Again this is where faith comes in to it. Allah swt promises victory and success for those who strive in His way. The only criteria is that we do whatever little we can, in pursuit of truth and justice. It could be writing a letter, monitoring the media, organising a protest. These are all things British Muslims are at last catching on to. Whatever we do it has to be done with the right intention. Our aim is to try and change society to be more just, not change ourselves purely to suit it. Either we change the world for the better or we die trying.
Arzu Merali is one of the founder members of the Islamic Human Rights Commission
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If someone had the inclination to inscribe the events of the last few weeks it would make good theatre. The burning Muslim desire to appear on Kilroy, the BBC’s flagship morning chat show, provides enough material for any aspiring comedy playwright. Only it wouldn’t be fiction - just another sad indictment of the British Muslim mentality, exceptional only in its failure not to fail.
An American student I met earlier this year who was explaining some of the ways he was paying his way through college, alleged as many have done that he was paid to appear on Kilroy. Of course, I can’t prove this. This American could just be a dastardly liar, but he seemed pretty convincing. All he allegedly had to do was go to a debate on single mothers and wax lyrical about how he could never date one (and then maybe change his mind). As he put it, “It beats filling shelves at Sainsbury’s.”
This isn’t new. The BBC’s Vanessa show was scrapped a few years back over a similar scandal. This type of TV is superficial and insincere. Throw in the fact that Robert Kilroy-Silk is an established Islamophobe and you could ask quite rightly, why Muslims of any shape, size, political or spiritual hue should want to appear on it? Kilroy-Silk’s well publicised views on Islam and Muslims can be described as misleading. I would just call him a bigot. In the Daily Express in the mid-90s he proudly declared that Muslims, “are backward and evil, and if it is being racist to say so then I must be and happy and proud to be so.” Just to clarify matters: Kilroy hates us. Unfortunately, the debacle surrounding Omar Bakri Mohammed’s almost appearance on the show illustrates the all too familiar pattern of British Muslim activism self-destructing and not realising it’s blown its head off.
At the end of October, organisations began receiving calls from Kilroy researchers asking for names of victims who have suffered from the anti-Muslim backlash in the wake of September 11. Those of us who have been boycotting Kilroy told them politely where to go. Unfortunately not all organisations did. Soon emails appeared from new brothers on the bloc, set to challenge Islamophobia by…asking for people to help Kilroy with information? Sending people to attend his show? Then Kilroy decided to throw Omar Bakri Mohammed a line and do a show on British Muslims willing to fight for the Taliban. Hereon ensued the farce.
More emails went around in their thousands, now urging Muslims to lobby the Kilroy team to drop Omar Bakri. Hundreds of protests flooded the production team, stating that Omar Bakri is unrepresentative and that ‘moderates’ should be allowed to speak instead. The Kilory team refused to budge. A demonstration was even organised outside the BBC protesting the choice of guest.
In the hysteria the organisations involved seemed to forget that Kilroy and his team didn’t care if ‘moderate’ Muslims attended their show or stood outside and protested. The programme is Kilroy produced. It is not an objective space within which debate can be heard, it is all about Kilroy making his point. If he thinks Muslims are evil, that’s the point he will make whether his guest is Omar Bakri or Mary Poppins. As regards the protests, Kilroy published an article days later decrying the campaign as evidence that wider society needs to “defend our freedom of speech from those calling themselves moderates demanding tolerance - but only for themselves.”
As it happened more sensible voices prevailed. A brother persuaded Omar Bakri to boycott the show. The stories regarding his no show are many, but he himself states that he received death threats from other Muslims should he appear on the show. However marginal Omar Bakri Mohammed’s views are (and I for one don’t endorse them) , this whole debacle shows that we have a long and sorry journey to make.
Just as ten years ago the Muslim mantra was unity (between Shias and Sunnis against non-Muslims, between Sunnis and Sunnis against Shias and / or Wahabis, and vice versa, Urdu speakers against non-Urdu speakers and so on…), this time round we’re all singing ‘lobby.’ The recent media monitoring exercises are a case in point.
The recent efforts have been phenomenal- a fantastic achievement for the community, and those responsible for it should be proud. When Julie Birchill decided to vent her anti-Muslim vitriol in the Guardian in August, neither she nor her editors expected the complaints that jammed the lines for the next few days. Possibly for the first time ever it was Muslims one, Birchill nil.
So what is wrong? My concern - and this is a personal concern - is that we are rushing headlong into an enterprise without any thought regarding the problems of the methodologies we use. Whilst we clearly hate the racism and injustice that is Zionism, we seem to admire the achievements of the Zionist lobby. We are creating an inverse set of aims i.e. to create pressure on governments, the media etc. to promote Muslim ‘issues’ regardless. As appealing as this sounds, this is not necessarily a good thing. Should we, for example, defend Muslims when they are persecuting others be they Muslim or non-Muslim? It’s one thing to lobby for support of the Palestinians in the intifada, but how about a so-called Muslim government like Indonesia? Campaigning to support Muslims murdered by Christian militias in the Spice Islands makes ethical sense, but campaigning to support the Indonesian government is not the same. These are issues which Muslims have to address now. Principle or pragmatism?
As seductive as the pragmatic approach may be, we need to re-evaluate what our activism is for. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Kilroy-Silk was one of many who stated that Islam was the new enemy to Western hegemony. As recently as September this year Kilroy was on his anti-Muslim bandwagon condemning Palestinians as terrorists and describing Israeli atrocities as the odd ‘silly thing.’ Is the sole purpose of our campaigning really to change his mind? Even if this was realistic, are we just to accept the status quo and lobby for a change in its balance towards Muslims?
Creating strategic alliances with players in the race industry is another road we seem to be following. Coalitions based on principles can be excellent. Working with known Zionists can only be disastrous. Campaigning against Islamophobia when your advisor, or patron or even the chairman believes anti-Zionist campaigning needs to be outlawed can only be successful at the price of the oppressed elsewhere.
If we follow blindly the experiences of the Zionist lobby by writing thank you letters to inimical journalists for writing less offensive articles (as recently happened with Polly Toynbee), or ask production teams to only listen to certain Muslims, we may have a media and government in 50 years time ready to promote the views of the most persistent Muslim activists as policy. We may too also have a self-interested community that perpetuates the most grotesque injustices against its own people: excluding those who disagree with its aims to fend for themselves as unrecognised and unrepresented voices. This is where the Zionist lobby is at today. Is this where we want to be tomorrow?
There are principles at stake here. This is where it gets theological. The Qur’an clearly enjoins Muslims to stand up for justice even if it means bearing witness against oneself . Further it demands that we stand up and fight for those who are oppressed regardless of whether they are Muslim or not, or who it is that oppresses them. Some Muslim organisations seem to think the quest for justice is secondary to the quest for influence and political power. There may seem to be no tested British alternatives to the Zionist example. However, why should there have to be? Why can’t Muslims make a path for themselves - changing the rules instead of just playing by them? Steve Biko - who gave his life in the struggle to end apartheid - famously said, “The greatest weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” We have to stop thinking and acting in ways that have been determined by those who oppress others. If we don’t the ‘best’ we can achieve is to become oppressors in their mould.
Next time any Muslim is invited onto an Islamophobic platform, we should protest against the platform not their choice of guest. Argue with the guest not to attend. Don’t give in to the ‘extremist - moderate’ pigeon holing. Making death threats and denying multiple voices is not moderation. Realpolitik shows that today’s moderates are tomorrow’s extremists. Next time lets show that Muslim diversity is a strength, and that we can debate and allow people to air views that we disagree with even if the likes of Kilroy can’t.
The South African example is one that we could aspire to. The role of Muslim activism was integral to the fall of apartheid. Muslims gave their lives in the struggle. Many fought the battle on the basis of Quranic injunction, not ANC instructions. These men and women like Imam Haroon, were willing to die for justice for peoples who at the end of the day were mainly non-Muslim. This clearly didn’t and hasn’t until today served any political interests of the Muslim community. These people gave their lives because it was an Islamic cause, and it was a religious duty on them.
There are other reasons for not following the Zionist example. Ask a rabbi like Yisroel Weiss who attended the World Conference Against Racism as part of the Islamic Human Rights Commission team. When he described why his group, Neturei Karta, were so vehemently opposed to Zionism and the state of Israel, he responded thus, “Zionism not only kills people, it kills the soul.” Spiritual values are ethical values. Having those ethics and values means that you can’t employ any and all tactics in the pursuit of the truth. To do so negates the truth you aspire to.
Standing for principle sometimes merits no immediate results. What then, you may ask, is the point? Again this is where faith comes in to it. Allah swt promises victory and success for those who strive in His way. The only criteria is that we do whatever little we can, in pursuit of truth and justice. It could be writing a letter, monitoring the media, organising a protest. These are all things British Muslims are at last catching on to. Whatever we do it has to be done with the right intention. Our aim is to try and change society to be more just, not change ourselves purely to suit it. Either we change the world for the better or we die trying.
Arzu Merali is one of the founder members of the Islamic Human Rights Commission
Monday, 19 March 2007
Ataturk's children
Site Info
In the Name of the Most High.
I have been blessed and privileged in the last fifteen years to have travelled widely and met with some of the most extraordinary and inspiring people, to witness many important events and then have my notes and thoughts published. From attending world conferences to meeting with the downtrodden and oppressed, this site is an archive of work published across the last decade or so, a sort of travelogue that serves as much a reminder to myself that the world is a happy and diverse place, and also that sadly many problems remain.
I also intend to use it to publish more recent thoughts and to revisit old ideas and themes, as well as publishing the thoughts of colleagues on similar issues. Posting may be erratic and not always thematic, so please bear with the site. Thank you for taking the time to visit.
Arzu.
London, March, 2007
It is ten years since this article was published, it must be noted that the AK-Party now in power have made torture a criminal offence, drastically amended the sexual crimes against women laws to allow more prosecutions for rape, child abuse etc., and many scores of political detainees have been released. Voted in with a large mandate from the Kurdish community, they have also announced the 'Democratic Initiative' which allows for Kurdish rights to be respected.
In the Name of the Most High.
I have been blessed and privileged in the last fifteen years to have travelled widely and met with some of the most extraordinary and inspiring people, to witness many important events and then have my notes and thoughts published. From attending world conferences to meeting with the downtrodden and oppressed, this site is an archive of work published across the last decade or so, a sort of travelogue that serves as much a reminder to myself that the world is a happy and diverse place, and also that sadly many problems remain.
I also intend to use it to publish more recent thoughts and to revisit old ideas and themes, as well as publishing the thoughts of colleagues on similar issues. Posting may be erratic and not always thematic, so please bear with the site. Thank you for taking the time to visit.
Arzu.
London, March, 2007
It is ten years since this article was published, it must be noted that the AK-Party now in power have made torture a criminal offence, drastically amended the sexual crimes against women laws to allow more prosecutions for rape, child abuse etc., and many scores of political detainees have been released. Voted in with a large mandate from the Kurdish community, they have also announced the 'Democratic Initiative' which allows for Kurdish rights to be respected.
Having said all that, the hijab ban at universities remains, despite their attempts to have it overturned.
This was published in New Internationalist in August 1999. A month later Gul Aslan, mentioned herein, was released. At the time of posting (March 2007) Tayyip Erdogan is now Prime Minister of Turkey. The Hijab ban persists and is affecting women in all walks of life. This is an abridged version of 'Freedom is My Daughter's Name' published in Q-News, later that same year.
We trudged around the standard sights of Istanbul: Orthodox monuments and retreats, the Basilica cistern, signposts in Latin and Slavic script to cater for the tourists. Our trip was a snapshot of radical Europhilia and consumerism – and of a country mired in the murder of 10,000 political prisoners in ten years.
We had arrived on the 75th anniversary of the Republic. Its founder, Mustafa Kemal Pasha, took the title Ataturk – Father of the Turks. His image, Nietzsche’s last man – amoral, apolitical and above all modern – looked down on his subjects from all the lamp posts.
The end of history would indeed be nigh if the West’s perception of Turkey as a ‘modernizing’ and ‘democratizing’ state had any meaning. Turkish George Michaels and Madonnas perform on terrestrial and satellite TV channels. Advertisements for shampoo and exotic night-life are set beside semi-naked women on billboards selling cars. A culture of imported (female) and indigenous (male) prostitution mimics the meaning of freedom. Ataturk’s children can buy (into) it all. But still they resist.
Nazat Ashik is in her fifties. She has set up an organization to help prisoners and their families, in a country where even criticizing the founding dictator is still treason and no-one knows exactly how many prisoners there are. Her son, Mustafa, is serving a 17-year sentence for writing against the Government. He bled from his genitalia for two months before admitting the charge. Turkish prison officers use similar methods to the Algerian and Iraqi security forces – electric shocks, dousing in cold water, buggery with broken bottles.
Mazlumder is the name of a human-rights organization with 22 branches around the country. Since the 1997 ruling by the National Security Council (an amalgam of politicians and generals) that Muslims were the ‘number-one enemy of the principles of modern Turkey’, its offices have been repeatedly raided. Three were recently closed down and the organization’s accounts frozen.
I first met Ipek Firat at Mazlumder. She had been detained during a prison visit to her husband, Mehmet, who is an alleged associate of an Islamist group. Together with their cellmate, the journalist Gul Aslan, they were repeatedly tortured. Ipek was released without charge. Her husband ‘confessed’ and is now serving 15- and 22-year sentences consecutively.
Aslan’s case hasn’t been heard in two-and-a-half years. I met her in Bandirma Prison. Behind two sets of bars and reinforced perspex she looked far older than her 24 years. ‘Don’t worry about me,’ she smiled, almost smug in her passive resistance. ‘The fact that I’m here means they, the generals, are scared... It’s only a matter of time before their rule will end.’ How long would that be? In her lifetime? Conscious that her lifetime might be considerably shorter than most, she answered: ‘Maybe. God willing.’
Our unofficial guide, Rabia, is articulate, intelligent and determined – a veritable heroine of the human-rights epic that is gripping her country. She is one among thousands of Turkish women students who have been banned from attending university. She is ‘suspended’ because she is a practising Muslim who wears a headscarf. The ban on headscarves is now more strictly enforced than at any time since the military coups of the 1980s. Few teachers are brave enough to allow any choice – ‘treason’ covers many crimes. So every day groups of students arrive at class. Every day the police remove them. Every day they show their defiance by holding their own classes on the pavements outside.
In October 1998 countrywide demonstrations in support of veiled students saw four million protesters – male and female, veiled and mini-skirted – hold hands. Only a skirmish between police and protesters in Ankara made the news. These are never ‘Ataturk’s children’.
Women like Rabia, Ipek and Gul have, however, become the new advocates of emancipation in Turkey. Akit, a well-respected secular periodical, asked: ‘Why not be like Iran?’ Turkey has fewer women in universities, the medical profession or the media. The Ayatollah has outstripped Ataturk.
Islamaphobia in Turkey is one of the more ridiculous imports from a Europe the generals so desperately wish to join. Istanbul’s elected Mayor, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was prosecuted for reading out Ottoman poetry in public. He was sentenced to a year in prison and a lifetime ban from all political activities.
Westernization, says the author Emine Senlikoglu, means that ‘anything goes’ – except political opposition. She currently awaits the outcome of two cases against her for proposing an independent judiciary. Her first prison term was for a book on freedom of speech, her second for answering from a conference platform a question about why she was imprisoned.
Aslan’s husband, Tamar, still suffers torture. She too was arrested on a prison visit. Their three-year-old daughter sees them every two weeks – had Aslan been a common criminal, her child could have stayed with her.
‘What’s your daughter’s name?’ I asked as the little girl ran around the prison visitors’ hall.
‘Azad,’ she replied. ‘FREEDOM.’
Arzu Merali is a freelance journalist based in London.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)