The only 'proper' Muslim is a non-political one
Last week Hazel Blears has announced that the government would fund a "Theology board" for Muslims in the UK. In an interview with Radio 4, she said lots of nice - and true - things about Islam: that it is peaceful, that it is a religion of compassion, and then Kaboom! She claimed that this board will allow for a "proper interpretation" of Islam. I felt like I was stuck in the blurry screen waves of a bad 1970's sitcom which was transporting us back to the Middle Ages, to a time when the Government dictated to the public what is and isn't proper in religion. And this was indeed, about as funny as aforementioned sitcom.
The government has stated that it is doing its best to tackle Islamists who are the source of extremism. According to the government, Islamists are all without exception terribly violent and bloodthirsty. Islamists are apparently the cause of the world's problems - earthquakes in China, climate change, food shortages, the fuel crisis and poverty and malnutrition to name but a few. The only good Islamist is an ex-Islamist. The government has then used this premise to go on to define its entire policy about Muslims in the UK around the issue of security, ignoring issues of economics, society, education and deprivation.
The term 'Islamist' was once applied to anyone who used Islam as a political ideology. Muslims who do not have a political ideology of any sort are okay and need not be worried about being infected by Islamism. But the problem is that the term 'Islamism' has now been stretched to mean any Muslim who is political.
Blears insinuates that Muslims who are not politically active are the preferred kind of Muslim. She said in a speech to the Policy Exchange: "The fact remains that most British Muslims, like the wider community, are not politically active, do not sit on committees, and do not attend seminars and meetings. They are working hard, bringing up families, planning their holidays, and going about their business." Jack Straw was also quite clear about this two years ago: you can't be a Muslim woman in niqab and visit your MP to engage in the political process.
So if you are a poor confused brainwashed Muslim who cannot tell the difference between someone who is peddling violence and someone who is rocking their head with Britolerant chanting, then the government is going to help you decide your opinions, don't you worry, poor little Muslim.
The stance of the government takes the handful of criminals who have engaged in violent activity and states that this is a perverted interpretation of Islam, and needs to be exposed as such. Tony Blair said in a discussion with young Muslims "we have to accept that this is therefore a Muslim problem, and a problem with Islam." I reject this utterly.
This is a criminal issue, which needs to be exposed and rejected as such. The criminals are invoking the mantle of Islam as protection. The only way to get rid of them is for everyone together - including Muslims and the government - to isolate those horrible violent activities as outside the philosophy of Islam. There is no need for a 'proper' interpretation of Islam, because these activities are not to do with Islam. Rooting the problem falsely within Islam has created a hostile and prejudiced environment where the criminal activities cannot be properly attacked. The government doesn't like to hear this being said, but this is the only sensible right-minded way forward.
The recent refusal of ministers to attend IslamExpo is a case in point. Irrespective of their opinion of the organisers, it was a chance to engage with forty thousand Muslims who want to create and settle into a comfortable peaceful British Islam. It smacks of an increasing confusion on the part of the government who are now not only failing to engage with Muslims, but are actively disengaging with those Muslims who are working to a positive peaceful agenda. Blears is playing a dangerous and - in my opinion - futile game which can only backfire as it will leave the vast majority of peaceful Muslims feeling resentful at being singled out for undemocratic dictatorship of their religious views, something with which the government has no business.
My government - the one that I dutifully pay my taxes to, the one that I actively engage with through support and through criticism as part of my duties as subject and citizen, the one that I cast my vote for (or against), the one that I have represented abroad on official business, the one that I support through my labour resources and contribution to the economy - this government tells me that I cannot be a Muslim and engage in politics. Government you have failed to understand that it is I, and millions of others who engage in political activity, that have put you into a position of power. And this statement refers not just to the Labour party, but to any party in power, so Conservatives take note too. Your holding of the reins of power is at the behest of those who vote you in.
If our government makes a statement that a Muslim with a 'proper interpretation' of Islam is one that does not engage in political activity then our government does not have a 'proper interpretation' of its role and authority.
I wrote a piece a year ago stating "Five Things I love About Being a British Muslim Woman." In it I emphasised the importance as a Muslim of contributing to the nation that you are part of, and that part of being a contributing member is to be proud of what is good in that nation and to offer positive criticism to make the country a better place.
I continue to be committed to the people of Britain and to making our country a flourishing, forward-looking nation. In return the government has made a mockery of Muslims like me who want to engage in the political process by the rules of democracy, shared values and freedom of speech that the government claims underpin our shared vision of society. And the government is also making a mockery of the claims of democracy and freedom of speech by illegitimately excluding from political participation those whose opinions the government does not like. The government needs instead to think clearly for itself and avoid pandering to any which old voice which is popular in fear-mongering circles for their actions are undermining both the positive goals of social cohesion as well as the political process.
Blears said that "You can't win political arguments with the leaders of groups... who believe in the destruction of the very democratic process of debate and deliberation". By excluding the Muslim opinions that the government doesn't want to engage with through the devious method of saying that being a political Muslim is unpalatable, it is the government itself who is destroying the democratic process of debate.
The government has stated that it is doing its best to tackle Islamists who are the source of extremism. According to the government, Islamists are all without exception terribly violent and bloodthirsty. Islamists are apparently the cause of the world's problems - earthquakes in China, climate change, food shortages, the fuel crisis and poverty and malnutrition to name but a few. The only good Islamist is an ex-Islamist. The government has then used this premise to go on to define its entire policy about Muslims in the UK around the issue of security, ignoring issues of economics, society, education and deprivation.
The term 'Islamist' was once applied to anyone who used Islam as a political ideology. Muslims who do not have a political ideology of any sort are okay and need not be worried about being infected by Islamism. But the problem is that the term 'Islamism' has now been stretched to mean any Muslim who is political.
Blears insinuates that Muslims who are not politically active are the preferred kind of Muslim. She said in a speech to the Policy Exchange: "The fact remains that most British Muslims, like the wider community, are not politically active, do not sit on committees, and do not attend seminars and meetings. They are working hard, bringing up families, planning their holidays, and going about their business." Jack Straw was also quite clear about this two years ago: you can't be a Muslim woman in niqab and visit your MP to engage in the political process.
So if you are a poor confused brainwashed Muslim who cannot tell the difference between someone who is peddling violence and someone who is rocking their head with Britolerant chanting, then the government is going to help you decide your opinions, don't you worry, poor little Muslim.
The stance of the government takes the handful of criminals who have engaged in violent activity and states that this is a perverted interpretation of Islam, and needs to be exposed as such. Tony Blair said in a discussion with young Muslims "we have to accept that this is therefore a Muslim problem, and a problem with Islam." I reject this utterly.
This is a criminal issue, which needs to be exposed and rejected as such. The criminals are invoking the mantle of Islam as protection. The only way to get rid of them is for everyone together - including Muslims and the government - to isolate those horrible violent activities as outside the philosophy of Islam. There is no need for a 'proper' interpretation of Islam, because these activities are not to do with Islam. Rooting the problem falsely within Islam has created a hostile and prejudiced environment where the criminal activities cannot be properly attacked. The government doesn't like to hear this being said, but this is the only sensible right-minded way forward.
The recent refusal of ministers to attend IslamExpo is a case in point. Irrespective of their opinion of the organisers, it was a chance to engage with forty thousand Muslims who want to create and settle into a comfortable peaceful British Islam. It smacks of an increasing confusion on the part of the government who are now not only failing to engage with Muslims, but are actively disengaging with those Muslims who are working to a positive peaceful agenda. Blears is playing a dangerous and - in my opinion - futile game which can only backfire as it will leave the vast majority of peaceful Muslims feeling resentful at being singled out for undemocratic dictatorship of their religious views, something with which the government has no business.
My government - the one that I dutifully pay my taxes to, the one that I actively engage with through support and through criticism as part of my duties as subject and citizen, the one that I cast my vote for (or against), the one that I have represented abroad on official business, the one that I support through my labour resources and contribution to the economy - this government tells me that I cannot be a Muslim and engage in politics. Government you have failed to understand that it is I, and millions of others who engage in political activity, that have put you into a position of power. And this statement refers not just to the Labour party, but to any party in power, so Conservatives take note too. Your holding of the reins of power is at the behest of those who vote you in.
If our government makes a statement that a Muslim with a 'proper interpretation' of Islam is one that does not engage in political activity then our government does not have a 'proper interpretation' of its role and authority.
I wrote a piece a year ago stating "Five Things I love About Being a British Muslim Woman." In it I emphasised the importance as a Muslim of contributing to the nation that you are part of, and that part of being a contributing member is to be proud of what is good in that nation and to offer positive criticism to make the country a better place.
I continue to be committed to the people of Britain and to making our country a flourishing, forward-looking nation. In return the government has made a mockery of Muslims like me who want to engage in the political process by the rules of democracy, shared values and freedom of speech that the government claims underpin our shared vision of society. And the government is also making a mockery of the claims of democracy and freedom of speech by illegitimately excluding from political participation those whose opinions the government does not like. The government needs instead to think clearly for itself and avoid pandering to any which old voice which is popular in fear-mongering circles for their actions are undermining both the positive goals of social cohesion as well as the political process.
Blears said that "You can't win political arguments with the leaders of groups... who believe in the destruction of the very democratic process of debate and deliberation". By excluding the Muslim opinions that the government doesn't want to engage with through the devious method of saying that being a political Muslim is unpalatable, it is the government itself who is destroying the democratic process of debate.
Labels: british, Extremism, faith, Hijab, Islam, Muslim, Muslim Veil, Muslim women, Muslims, News, niqab muslim, politics, religion, social cohesion, Terror, tony blair, Veil
posted by Shelina Zahra Janmohamed at 18:09
26 Comments:
I think though your article has some foundation you are being too hard on Ms Blears. Muslims and Islam are under the spotlight more than ever before, which in truth, I think it is a good thing as it is beginning to shake enough Muslims at the core to become more active in politics, journalism, media. The theology board is not made up of non-muslims but rather recognised qualified Muslim scholars and oh my is it about time. Muslims right now can't do anything together. At least now with a board of authority the muslim community may just have a chance to differentiate between culture and faith and thus be better placed to sort out many overemphasised cultural practices in the name of Islam. Though I have had and even have staunch misgivings about the WAR ON TERROR and Britains role in it, I fully support Ms Blears and I think every single Muslim should.
Even though the board members will be Muslims, it is the government who will decide which particular Muslims are part of the board. Will you follow this board? No Muslim will be duty-bound to listen to it, in fact given that the government has selected it, many Muslims probably won't. So what purpose does it serve?
The government has clearly stated that it doesn't 'do' religion. So what are they up to 'doing' Islam? And there is no similar board convened by the government for other faiths.
Any board has to have been given authority by the people who will abide by it - there was no community participation in setting up this board, simply a top-down approach.
I agree totally with Shelina here, I don't agree with your notion Mohammed. If you cannot see that the government is putting forth a version of Islam that we must agree to or else we are outcasted. I mean, which other group has been singled out and told not to participate politicaly, as it is best for them.
Replace the word Muslim with Jew or Black and you will see how nutty the notion in itself is.
To support Ms Blears is simply daft. I rather not take my Islam or the definition of it from non-Muslims, but rather from the long tradition of scholars who get their knowledge in an unbroken chanin from the Prophet himself.
I think you are judging this board a little too quickly. This board will be independent and Im sure MPAC and other Muslim groups will be overseeing this theological board. I think it is best to wait and see who is selected on the panel before being so judgmental.
When it comes to Muslim is this country, we are the 2nd largest faith group and the group that attracts the greatest amount of interest. In addition to that we are the largest faith group of immigrants that is easily seen to be culturally different and hence the spotlight.
As for the anonymous blogger with all due respect the government is NOT putting forth its own version of Islam. The board will comprise of independent muslim scholars. I dont think you have read the articles in the Times properly now have you? As for your other comment related to getting your knowledge from those scholars who have an unbroken chain right to the Prophet? Unfortunately, the ijaza right to the Prophet broke sometime ago...shame really. Furthermore, all knowledge relating to the sunnah tends to go back to the Prophet anyway. To conclude Muslims do get a a lot negative attention right now but I think the UK is the best place for a muslim to live in Europe or even the world right now as you wouldnt get this amount of freedom in another European country...and dont get me started on the freedom in Muslim countries...i mean no offence so please do not think I am attacking either of you. I just feel you should give it a chance...it could be a blessing in disguise. After 9/11...Islam just exponentially increased in the West inc. USA...what im saying there is always a silver lining inshallah.
I have no issue with a board per se. I also agree that Muslims are certainly in the spotlight and need to address their issues around culture, faith and belonging.
You'll see that I have long argued that Muslims in Britain need to be more forward looking and visionary in creating new paradigms and cultures for our new situation. We go on and on about our wonderful global and diverse heritage, but all of that came from somewhere - and in the UK we are at the beginning of that process.
I think Muslims themselves need to proactively build intellectual and leadership resources, I fully agree with that too.
I also agree that Muslim communities are entitled to funding - after all we pay taxes too, and we are subjects of the realm as well.
The problem is that the board is being convened and all the funding for Muslims comes from the fund for "Preventing violent extremism" ie. the board and other projects are designed with the specific government context that the issue which defines Muslims is security/terror and what Muslims need money for is to learn how to be 'proper' Muslims according to the government's prism of security.
Independent can only be as independent as your paymasters allow. That is why the government doesn't interfere with the judiciary and why it doesn't/shouldn't interfere with faith.
MashaAllah, very well written and absolutely spot on sister, i agree with you 100%
I concur I would not fault your logic with regards to your only 'independent as your paymasters would allow' that goes for anything as you can appreciate. Unforunately Muslim entrepreneurs have an extremely tough time getting funding from Muslims organisations which seek to tackle these types of issues. I also agree the government funding source can be cause of concern but we still shouldnt be cynical about it just yet. Let's wait and see. I know of 2 organisations that receive funding from the same source and they have been very well received by the greater muslim community and no-one can say they are not doing a decent job or lack autonomy. Fact is Muslim are not being pro-active in dealing with the short comings in their communities for one reason or another and i think it is about time someone or some organisation once it establishes respect with the greater community does.
Salaams,
Sister Shelina your article certainly chimes with my views. You have articulated your thoughts in a succinct and apt manner. I'm afraid our dear brother Mohammad, appears to be a little politically naive on this matter. I cannot understand why he is bringing in the issue of culture and Islam. That is in entirely different matter which has to be dealt within the community in its own time. However, you have tackled his comment well.
It's very pleasing to find Muslim sisters who are politically astute such as yourself, Maas Allah. Keep it up.
With all due respect to the last anonymous comment who claims your views chimes with theres...all I can say is that there is no point is arguing about it right now as time will tell whether I have been politically naiive. But I do hope regardless of your definately understandable criticisms I am correct for all of our sakes.
Shelina - I'm trying to find an email address for you, but failing. I wanted to say that I hope you'll read my novel http://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Damascus-Robin-Yassin-Kassab/dp/0241144094/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213834150&sr=8-1
and review it if you like it. It covers 'British Muslim issues' amongst other things.
Well it looks like some people are going to be 'governmentally raised'. This will probably have the effect of making such individuals look exceedingly naff and self-important.
Islamic workers and civic types dont need government assistance to earn kudos.
I'm intrigued as to who might take the bait and whether the MCB takes it as a challenge or a threat. The rest of us can just get on with life and building inclusive ummahoods.
The notion of 'State sponsored theology' is anathema to a sound person of any faith.
Sadly though, 'Command and control' is the only credo this Government knows.
Blears did rather give the game away when she was asked what would happen if the Board advocated or approved of something the Government didn't agree with.
"It won't" was, in effect, her Stalinist reply.
And yet our secularist friends are delighted by this. very odd. they are having a lively discussion over at harry's place...
Salam Shelina
Exellent analysis delivered with such eloquence as usual Mashallah.
How would it be possible to contact you as I represent an organisation and I would dearly like to post this on our website with your permission. Because I think it will benefit our readeship greatly.
Salams
If you'd like to get in touch, please post a comment with your contact details. I won't publish it, but I will capture your address and write back
Qunfuz, if you send me a review copy I'll be happy to read and review it for you
You have wonderful prose Sr Shelina, a very pertinent and representitive article, your sentiments are echoed by many. Jazakallah'Khair, May Allah (swt) grant you happiness, success and prosperity. I noticed your article is doing the rounds. Its posted on the front page of the Muslim Directory site.
Another good article, but I would like to take issue on a point. You comment on the "handful of criminals who have engaged in violent activity". You state that you utterly reject Tony Blairs comments that this is a Muslim problem, but you also strongly condemn those who misuse Islam to persue violent ends and call them "criminals".
But surely, those people (criminals)trying to blow people up in the name of Islam are Muslims. That is, it's not Christians who are trying to persuade the Muslims in their midst to plant bombs, and the people who taught them to believe that it is right to blow people up were also Muslim, and so too were those who funded them and those who supplied them with the bombs. At the same time, those who understand that Islam is being misinterpreted or twisted are also Muslim, since by and large it is Muslims who have knowledge of the Koran. The best perople to bring up a child to be a good Muslim are Muslim parents.
I would argue therefore that both the cause and the solution to such a problem come from within the Muslim community.
I have also read many comments on various websites, supporting the 7/7 London bombers, they too call themselves Muslim, but post very different arguments to those I read here. Who is right? and who decides who is right? I am sure both you and they could quote scripture to back up your respective views.
This is an issue that is not contained within UK boundaries and is therefore not a UK issue, but it is an issue that appears accross the Muslim world, both in Muslim countries and Muslim communities in non Muslim countries.
Excellent. Very very well-written. You've totally understood the issue properly. Keep up the good work.
Shelina, further to your comment on Harry's Place which I've only just seen....
"Paul, the language you used was really quite disgusting and offensive. Luckily for you you can hide in the blogosphere, but really that sort of commentary would be considered a form of harrassment."
Really, I've no idea what you're talking about. Disgusting and offensive? Harrassment? How? Because I described religious beliefs as "ludicrous" and "childish"? Because I said "religious twerps"? Because I used the word "fucking"? How does any of that constitute "harrassment"? It's also quite a leap to describe any of it as "disgusting".
John P can rant and rave like a lunatic and the best you can do is ask whether he's a nice person who needs a hug? While I get "offensive", "disgusting" and "harrassment"?
I think you should get a grip.
Paul, my apologies, I did of course mean John P and not you.
Sorry, I will post up an apology on harry's place toute suite.
Harry's Place? Thought that was bar in Singapore! Wondered what you were doing there...;-)
Just come through from the MPACUK website, good article and totally agree with you
Sr. Shelina totally agreed with what you had to say.
Look forward to reading some more of your posts.
Happy blogging...
Peace.
I wonder if you have ever seen the report from Civitas that says:
"It is not enough for the vast majority of decent, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims to renounce terror in principle, including September 11 and similar events....If they choose to live in Western liberal democratic societies, they must accept the values of liberal democracy—as Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and others have done for many years."
It is as if Blears goes further than this. You have to adopt liberal values AND agree with the government's belligerent policies towards Muslims at home and abroad.
"This is a criminal issue, which needs to be exposed and rejected as such. The criminals are invoking the mantle of Islam as protection. The only way to get rid of them is for everyone together - including Muslims and the government - to isolate those horrible violent activities as outside the philosophy of Islam. There is no need for a 'proper' interpretation of Islam, because these activities are not to do with Islam. Rooting the problem falsely within Islam has created a hostile and prejudiced environment where the criminal activities cannot be properly attacked."
It is criminality, yes, but what's the motivation behind the act? Why are the criminals doing what they're doing? I just don't believe you can answer that question without acknowledging the role played IN THE MINDS OF THE CRIMINALS by Islam. You may see their invoking the mantle of Islam as protection only; I suggest they see it as rather more. If I may borrow an idea from a well-known member of the Muslim Brotherhood the motivation behind AQ-inspired acts is to please Allah and to go quickly to paradise. That's what AQ-inspired individuals believe will be the result of their acts. If this is so then it follows that the person(s) best equipped to turn someone away from AQ-ideology are credible religious figures who can argue that such acts will NOT please Allah and will NOT be a fast track to paradise. I expect Hazel Blears might agree with that...though whether she has any plans to invite, say, Yusuf al-Qaradawi to join the board as a special guest is another matter altogether.
Post a Comment
<< Home