Islam is not an 'anti-thesis'
BBC Newsnight today reported on the government's plans for dealing with (Muslim) extremism on the internet. They are indicating moves towards creating a crime of 'grooming' towards violent extremism. I put 'Muslim' in brackets, because it is clearly aimed at Muslims rather than the entire body of horrors and extremist violent ideologies that lurk in the crevices of cyber-murk.
They focused on The Radical Middle Way, and had a chap from the nascent Quilliam Foundation, and a woman from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. None of them had anything particularly interesting to say. The Radical Middle Way said that they had to give platforms to a variety of voices to bring Muslims through a difficult change process. The Quilliam guy used the opportunity to announce the launch of his organisation, and the MPAC woman wasn't quite clear what her message was other than the government was doing something wrong (and my guess was that she was thinking, could the government give MPAC some money too).
I checked out the Quilliam Foundation's website. It advocates a return to British Islam, based on the towering figure of Abdullah Quilliam. But it defines Islam through what it is not: not inconsistent, not Islamism, not Wahabbi, not failing, not weak. The key figures are very keen to point out that they are not Hizb-ut-Tahrir. They are not recruiting.
I think the most important subtext is that they do not want to be Other. And often this is the trap that Muslims fall into - defining their faith as an anti-thesis to what is around them. The HT crowd and ex-HT crowd are particularly prone to this. HT promoted a political (not religious) ideology in opposition to 'The West'. The newly matured 'rehabilitated' ex-HT crowd promote Islam as a nice fluffy way of life in opposition to HT.
Defence is never the way to create a win-win situation. Islam and Muslims can stand on their own two feet AND live in peace with those around them (as most Muslims do) AND most importantly they can have something new and pioneering to offer. It's not just about gaining glory by reflecting what people want to hear. Offering a breakthrough and pioneering approach based on people's shared humanity, by moving forward and being positive is what Islam, Muslims and human beings have to offer. Being defined in opposition to is an invitation towards social poverty.
They focused on The Radical Middle Way, and had a chap from the nascent Quilliam Foundation, and a woman from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. None of them had anything particularly interesting to say. The Radical Middle Way said that they had to give platforms to a variety of voices to bring Muslims through a difficult change process. The Quilliam guy used the opportunity to announce the launch of his organisation, and the MPAC woman wasn't quite clear what her message was other than the government was doing something wrong (and my guess was that she was thinking, could the government give MPAC some money too).
I checked out the Quilliam Foundation's website. It advocates a return to British Islam, based on the towering figure of Abdullah Quilliam. But it defines Islam through what it is not: not inconsistent, not Islamism, not Wahabbi, not failing, not weak. The key figures are very keen to point out that they are not Hizb-ut-Tahrir. They are not recruiting.
I think the most important subtext is that they do not want to be Other. And often this is the trap that Muslims fall into - defining their faith as an anti-thesis to what is around them. The HT crowd and ex-HT crowd are particularly prone to this. HT promoted a political (not religious) ideology in opposition to 'The West'. The newly matured 'rehabilitated' ex-HT crowd promote Islam as a nice fluffy way of life in opposition to HT.
Defence is never the way to create a win-win situation. Islam and Muslims can stand on their own two feet AND live in peace with those around them (as most Muslims do) AND most importantly they can have something new and pioneering to offer. It's not just about gaining glory by reflecting what people want to hear. Offering a breakthrough and pioneering approach based on people's shared humanity, by moving forward and being positive is what Islam, Muslims and human beings have to offer. Being defined in opposition to is an invitation towards social poverty.
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 23:17
7 Comments:
Was there any need to home in on one issue, an important one i might add, that the Mufti or Bosnia highlighted, the need for the Caliphate and it historical understanding. The kind of stanlinist approach taken by Mr. Nawaz to caricature the mufi as an 'extemist' has to be wrong. The Irony in all of this is that Quilliam was appointed Shiekh ul Islam to the UK by the Ottoman Caliphate.
"MPAC woman wasn't quite clear what her message was other than the government was doing something wrong (and my guess was that she was thinking, could the government give MPAC more money)."
Did she actually say that? why would you assuem such things? Have the government given mpac money previously? Maybe they should have invited you instead.
aaah, zeenat, I was wondering if I'd be picked up on that comment (I had a long discussion with someone before posting it up).
I simply thought the whole conversation was quite indicative of the state of Muslims - just saying how wrong other groups were. And in that sense it was quite funny (in a heartbreaking sort of way) to watch. I try very hard not to be part of that trend, because I think everyone is trying their best, albeit in different ways. And whilst I may not agree or even like other approaches, diversity of opinion and approach is what can lead us to a holistic solution.
If you've read my other musings you'll know that I'm quite tongue in cheek in the way I discuss opinions and happenings, and I was clear in this article that this was simply my assumption on the whole interview about government funding. It's taxpayer's money (and we Muslims are taxpayers) so at some level, investing this money into Muslim communities is right and proper. The point I always make is, what is the agenda for that investment? So nothing wrong with a group angling for funding.
You'll also know from my writings, that I often comment on how I think people come across - I think readers want to hear opinions from writers like me and others across the spectrum so they can form their own judgement on what is happening. My feeling after the interview was that the lady, smart, articulate and intelligent that she was, needed a better briefing before the show in order to make her point clear. Perhaps it was me that did not understand what she was saying, but I can only use my own understanding as a barometer for whether I thought she got her message across.
And no, I didn't want to be invited onto newsnight in this case. And no, there's certainly no case of sour grapes, if that's what you were wondering.
no i just saw you previously on newsnight and thought you were very good so i thought you should try to be on again. As for Mpac i just wondered where do they get funding from, i mean do thet get it from government? Aren't they very critical of government, as well as other groups? i often think their reps should be better briefed too, but maybe thats becuase they dont have enough funding and are simply amateurs...i do like their alerts and other action items though.
I've just been contacted by someone at MPAC who are very keen to clarify that they do not receive government funding. I'm hoping that they will post their comments from their email here so they can clarify their position.
Thanks for your kind comments about Newsnight. I should say the interviewees last night were fortunate to get Kirsty Wark - she's lovely (I'm a fan) and good at interviewing in a fair but compassionate manner.
Defence is never the way to create a win-win situation. Islam and Muslims can stand on their own two feet AND live in peace with those around them (as most Muslims do) AND most importantly they can have something new and pioneering to offer.
I agree with this, but you'll probably need to flesh this out more. On what basis do you sustain this fresh new approach? What are its key differences from the other approaches.
You're right in that everyone defines themselves as "not being them". This isn't just religion but also in politics. The Labour party almost describes itself as "but at least we're not the Tories" because they've run out of ideas that underpin their own thinking. Same with HuT. But if you want to have an alternative - what are those ideas?
Assalamu alaikum Sister Shelina
I have read a number of your writings and have been impressed masha'Allah, hence i thought I should visit your blog. Sad to say there don't seem to be many comments...A very sad indictment of the community I would say!
I think it is true that many do define their 'Islam' in juxtaposition to the other; which actually does not really provide the well-thought out conceptual framework we require as Muslims in Britain.
Part of this I feel is a jostling by various groups for 'hearts and minds' from within the community in order to follow a reactionary programme, which has no teleology, other than 'survival', ending bad foreign policy, or clarifying the mantra of 'Islam is misunderstood.'
As you have said in one of your previous posts, regarding Ibrahim (AS), Islam came and actually challenged the establishment, however in an appropriate way. For Muslims, I feel we almost need a 'second awakening' one which builds on the initial one.
Our initial awakening, (and I'm generalising) when we were young (or reverts) was to reconnect to scripture, devoid of grutuitous baggage, which had robbed it of its soual, and to apply its precepts to our lives, however, in a raw manner.
This was fine for established moral norms, i.e. sexual morality, intoxicants, however over more delicate areas, i.e. our relationships within a predominately non-Muslim society, our loyalty to the Ummah/Britain, they at times led to an acrimonious entrenchment of positions. This however I feel was inevitable, considering the deep cultural understanding many were raised in, coupled with the latent hostility to basic Muslims norms in society.
This second awakening has to take stock, and build upon the initial entrenchment, and show us how to approach difficult moral, social and political issues in a more conciliatory way, without forgoing our divinely ordained teleology.
Post a Comment
<< Home