Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): There is no such thing as the single monolithic “British Muslim community” that our politicians and media discuss. Britain’s one and a half million or so Muslims belong to a remarkably diverse set of communities; in all, it is estimated, there are over 50 ethnicities speaking almost 100 languages between them.
However it is possible to speak in generalities about their lives and experience in this country:
They are mainly young;
They tend to live in the most deprived cities, and a third of them live in the most deprived neighbourhoods in those cities;
They are disadvantaged and discriminated against in housing, education and employment by comparison with other faith groups;
Religion for Muslims is the most important factor in their lives after their family;
They suffer disproportionately more from discrimination, racial abuse and racial attacks than any other faith group, and the more openly devout they are, the more likely they are to experience harassment and abuse.
On top of all this, they are the subject of a vicious onslaught of abuse, written, verbal and phsyical - namely, Islamophobia. This phenomenon is nothing new for Britain’s Muslims. Impartial observers have identified and tracked it since the early 1900s, but it has grown worse since the terrorist attacks of September 2001 in the United States and the Tube and bus bombings of July 2005 in London. Insofar as it is a rational phenomenon, it seems that there is at its roots a view of Islam and Muslim culture which is as distorted as that of Osama Bin Laden and fellow extremists around the world. The voices of ordinary British Muslims are rarely, if ever, heard amid the torrent of their rage – and, let it be clearly said, the representation of Islam and their lives by the media in their own country. Yet when we at Democratic Audit actually talked to young Muslims across Britain we found an earnest and articulate group of youngsters for whom Islam was a religion of peace and concern for others. We also found profound feelings of fear and rejection.
There are those who deny that Islamophobia actually exists. For them the abuse and hatred of Muslims is being exaggerated to suit politicians’ needs and silence critics of Islam. They argue that the concept confuses hatred and discrimination against Muslims with entirely legitimate criticism of Islam. Of course, all religions must accept that their beliefs and practices are open to criticism, though few do so with good grace. But the discourse of Islamophobia bites far deeper than honest debate into the lives of Britain’s Muslims, raising anger and fear, as it does, and exposing them to contempt.
The deniers also state that discrimination against Muslims is not as great as it seems. Well, Peter Oborne and James Jones put paid to that argument in their passionate and deeply humane Dispatches report for Channel 4 on Monday night and in a pamphlet, Muslims under Siege, which Democratic Audit publishes next week (£12.50, inc P&P, from Denmore Lodge, Brunswick Gardens, Cambridge CB5 8DQ). The incidents that they describe are symptomatic; similar incidents have happened time and time again in the past, and will continue to happen in the future unless our society takes action. The exploitative media reporting that they analyse in detail is equally a recurring phenomenon. Perhaps we expect such shoddy and soulless conduct on the part of a tabloid press which is poisoning our society in a variety of ways. But they also uncover a disturbing willingness among writers in the broadsheet press and elsewhere to indulge themselves in blatantly anti-Islamic rhetoric and argument that would, as they argue, not be tolerated if it were directed against Jews, say, or gay people. I hope this report will give us all pause, and prompt all who care about the quality of life in this country to consider what can be done to halt this damaging and inhumane contempt for Britain’s Muslims.
Comments
With respect, I think you are over-generalising yourself to a degree.
>Religion for Muslims is the most important factor in their lives after their family;
You need to unpack "religion".
Non-Muslims assume that "religion" for Muslims includes buying in to a whole package of stereotypes - none of which fit. They need to understand the diversity within the community.
Accepting *any* generalisations is to buy in to the stereotypes that anti-Muslim headbangers (whether the right wing variety from the Telegraph comments box or the secularist variety who want us to believe that all religion is at root as bad as Al Qaeda) try to use to set the terms of debate.
Nominal Islam exists, in exactly the same way as nominal Christianity and non-practised Judaism. "Community spokesmen" may not like to talk about it, but Mosque attendance weekly is well under half (as far I can find out - figures are a devil to find).
I think we need a very robust debate, which will include exposing the anti-Muslim headbangers - but will also tackle the starry-eyed view that many (esp. Muslims who have not lived in a Muslim society and Westerners transfixed by an "exotic" faith) seem to have of Islam.
Such a debate needs to include "Jews in Iran" and "Christians (and bloggers) in Egypt" as well as "Muslims in Europe", and respect for the other must be combined with a strong assertion of European free expression traditions.
It is - perhaps - time to stop being polite to each other for the sake of not causing offence; the stakes are too high not to speak plainly.
Matt Wardman
I think all organised religion is bad. Why does religion have to be organised, why can't it be an individual relationship with God?
I must be a headbanger.
SharpMango-
Anonymous- As much as i'm sure you're trying to dig up anti-muslim facts, may i point out that the 'jews of iran' have been offered 60,000 USD EACH by foreign donors to leave Iran and move to Israel. It is up to them to decide whether to stay or leave. Yes the conditions are not as good as can be but they live in Iran by choice. Again about 'Christians in Egypt' they have lived peacebly in Egypt for hundreds of years with muslims. Sure again, anti-christian incidents occur, but may i remind you that the entire country lives under a police state where people's pent up frustrations are channelled by the state away from themselves and onto minorities. Oh and going to a mosque and 'hanging out with the wrong crowd' is enough to get one arrested and dissappear without a trace.
Regarding this article itself- Yes definitely, muslims are a serious of different ethno-cultural communities in the UK. Each with their own differences. Many mosques are hugely multi-cultural and some are specifically targeted at certain communities which outsiders have not even heard of. One thing is consistent though, muslims are united in the belief that there is much islamophobia in this country. the levels of misinformed media attention into muslims is crazy.
Toque- Christianity is an 'organised' religion. If one actually looks at sunni islam, it isnt 'organised' at all. There is no intermediary between a sunni muslim and God, there is no pope, it is impossible and crazy to imagine a scenario such as ex-communication. There is no defined set of beliefs one must have to be a sunni muslim EXCEPT that no one can tell them their beliefs. if you look at shia/ahmedi/ismailis/bohris etc. their religions are indeed organised. they have muslim communities here too. I think this goes back to the thread makers original point. There is no monolithic muslim community.
While almost all the papers have been guilty of stoking anti-Muslim sentiment, the Daily Express in particular deserves to be singled out as the most despicably vicious of the lot. Its relentless effort to drive that wedge deeper between Muslims and non-Muslims is truly disgusting, even to a card-carrying atheist like myself.
Is it harmless stuff that no-one really believes? Well let's remember that far more people buy the Express than the Guardian each day. And, as the administrator of several high profile forums that target what might be clumsily called "the masses" (think BBC Have Your Say types) it's truly shocking how that kind of ignorance does indeed make up mainstream opinion, and how so much is now being viewed through the prism of US (non Muslims, aka Britons) vs THEM (Muslims, aka foreigners in OUR country).
What revolts me is the way these misleading headlines are so calculated and intentional. The way they're deliberately designed to exploit and worsen what is already a very big sensitive problem, at the expense of shedding any real light on the issue.
SHARIA LAW IS BACKED BY TOP JUDGE
SNIFFER DOGS OFFEND MUSLIMS
So Now Bomb Search Police Face Restrictions
NOW MUSLIM CLERICS TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN
FURY OVER PLAN TO TEACH KORAN IN SCHOOLS
etc. etc. etc.
We should never allow our digust at all this to be simply dismissed as the PC pandering of liberal do-gooders. Hatred like this deserves to be highlighted, held up to scrutiny, ridiculed, placed in a historical context if necessary. Not in a way that adds to the counterproductive tribalising of the debate (in other words, no calling people "bigots") but in a way that, first and foremost, enlightens and educates.
The minute you call someone a bigot or a racist, you've lost.
Muslims under seige? They built their own castle then.
That doesn't stack up from where I'm sitting. Many workplaces allow a room for prayers. Muslims are allowed their own schools. There are housing projects specifically aimed at Muslims. There are halal bank accounts for Muslims. They're allowed to ritually slaughter their meat in accordance with their own beliefs. And so on.
As far as I can tell the "UK" is bending over backwards to accommodate the Muslim belief system.
Violence, bigotry and abuse - all absolutely unacceptable in a civilised society.
BTW you must know this, but it seems to need stating - Islam is not a race - it's a religion.
Bottom line - in the UK Muslims cause more trouble than any other faith group. We get the odd sacred cow incident from the Hindus, there have been cases where the Sikh community have caused a fuss about one thing or another. But with Muslims it's routine. It's week in week out - and the threat of violence is never far away.
Now you can blame the press if you like but they are categorically not making everything up. The Rushdie affair wasn't a conspiracy concocted by the Daily Mail. The "behead those who insult Islam" placards were not photoshopped. The explosions that tore through the tube were not staged.
These sorts of things do tend to get people's backs up.
Another reason is we're getting to learn more about Islam too. Religious intolerance is by no means exclusive to Islam - they're all at it. But the Muslims are right up there with the best of them.
Allah the compassionate and most merciful - doesn't he have a strange way of showing it? Homosexuality - punishable by death. Adultery punishable by death. Apostasy punishable by death. Blasphemy - you guessed it.
It seems to me that the more devout they are - the more likely they are to believe that homosexuals should be tossed off that cliff. The more likely they are to believe that women are inherently inferior to men. The more likely they are to believe that Jews are pigs or apes. The more likely they are to approve of limb chopping, stoning and beheadings. The more likely they are to hate the kuffar. The more likely they are to want sharia law for the "UK". The more likely they are to want Islam to dominate the world.
Then there is the constant threat of violence. If I was inclined to draw a picture of a fat ginger desert bandit on a camel riding across the desert with bags of swag hanging from the saddle and then put the caption "Mohammed on tour" underneath it and published it. Then my life would be in danger. Actually I'd struggle to get it published anywhere because people are already shit scared about the threat of Muslim violence.
I'm a denier.
As I understand it, a phobia is an irrational fear. As far as I can tell there is nothing irrational about fearing Islam. It threatens everything I believe in...
Violence, bigotry and abuse - all absolutely unacceptable in a civilised society.
Someone have a word with the Muslims about it.
--
I expect to get some stick for writing this but please don't cut my head off.
wyrdtimes
bang on the money friend
>SharpMango (?)
I asked for a robust debate; thank-you for replying. I hope you don't mind that I'm robust back.
Anonymous
>As much as i'm sure you're trying to dig up anti-muslim facts
1. Who are you to decide what my motivations are? Especially as you don't appear to have bothered to read to the end of the post to see my name. I'd prefer it if you addressed the points I made, rather than put a character assassination in the first line.
2. I think you have illustrated the problem with this entire debate - making assumptions about what other people think, deciding why they think that, and sticking labels on them. That prevents a proper dialogue.
>may i point out that the 'jews of iran' have been offered 60,000 USD EACH by foreign donors to leave Iran and move to Israel.
I don't see what that has to do with institutionalised discrimination in Iran. It seems to me that people are entitled to live in their country of their birth without - for example - having their testimony in court valued at half of that of their neighbour - as a basic principle. You may call it an "anti-Islamic" point; I call it a matter of justice, equality and fairness. As I said, there needs to be a robust dialogue which recognises differences.
>It is up to them to decide whether to stay or leave. Yes the conditions are not as good as can be but they live in Iran by choice.
Do you want to apply that approach to Muslims unhappy with the situation in the UK? An interesting response to all the points about discrimination and poverty in the article.
SharpMango says: "It is up to them to decide whether to stay or leave. Yes the conditions are not as good as can be but they live in Britain by choice."
I beg to differ.
>Again about 'Christians in Egypt' they have lived peacebly in Egypt for hundreds of years with muslims.
Which does not justify discrimination either! The fact that women did not have the vote for hundreds of years would not be a justification for denying them the vote now.
>Sure again, anti-christian incidents occur, but may i remind you that the entire country lives under a police state where people's pent up frustrations are channelled by the state away from themselves and onto minorities.
Sure, the police state is a problem on top - but you can hardly argue that it is all down to the police state. I won't bore you with chapter and verse on Egyptian constitution and discrimination here.
>Oh and going to a mosque and 'hanging out with the wrong crowd' is enough to get one arrested and dissappear without a trace.
I know. That doesn't address the point either, though.
My point is that this is not a "British" or a "European" debate; it is a worldwide debate - and to ignore that it to make the focus too narrow.
>Regarding this article itself- Yes definitely, muslims are a serious of different ethno-cultural communities in the UK. Each with their own differences. Many mosques are hugely multi-cultural and some are specifically targeted at certain communities which outsiders have not even heard of. >
I'd agree with you there, with the proviso that Islam does include a drive to uniformity in that most forms of Islam are more comprehensive in regulation of life than, for example, most forms of Christianity or Bhuddism. I'd acknowledge exceptions in both cases.
As I said at length in my post, acknowledging diversity is probably the crucial point. I'll unpack this in my reply to Mr Toque.
>One thing is consistent though, muslims are united in the belief that there is much islamophobia in this country. the levels of misinformed media attention into muslims is crazy.
Presumably SharpMango - as you argued for Jews in Iran - you would have them shut up or ship out. "Yes the conditions are not as good as can be but they live in Britain by choice." Again, I beg to differ. I think we need to address the issue in this country.
Unless - of course - you are proposing that Jews in Iran should be treated by a different standard than that to which Muslims in Britain are entitled? Are you?
>Christianity is an 'organised' religion.
I think you are drawing a broad brush stereotype there.
There are plenty of totally independent churches, and plenty of self-confessed 'Christians-outside-churches'.
>If one actually looks at sunni islam, it isnt 'organised' at all. There is no intermediary between a sunni muslim and God, there is no pope, it is impossible and crazy to imagine a scenario such as ex-communication.
I think that's too broad brush as well, and in practice doesn't hold, but that's one for another day.
For the record my blog is www.mattwardman.com, and I make a point of providing a platform for commentators thinking from a religious viewpoint. I'm working on finding a Muslim (and Hindu, and Sikh...) columnist, but they are not that thick on the ground. If you can help me find one, I'd be grateful - really.
Rgds
Matt Wardman
www.mattwardman.com
Toque:
>organised religion
I'm leaving that for another day, but I'd be delighted to carry a guest post about it, provided you'd agree to answer the questions that would follow.
>I must be a headbanger.
Being serious. The "headbangers" as I call them are those who I see as talking before listening.
Example: all the shouting when ABC Rowan made his lecture to lawyers
There was lots of inflammatory stuff everywhere about Sharia being about cutting off limbs, the death penalty and oppressing women.
No one bothered to find out, for example, that:
* "Sharia" is a 1000 year developing tradition of law with as many national variations as exist within the Anglo-Saxon tradition (compare England with the USA for example). It has to be addressed in a nuanced way, because it *is* nuanced.
* The cutting off limbs and other stereotypes may be true sometimes of the "most conservative" Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia - the fact is that quit a number of Islamic Countries (defined for the purposes as full members of the Islamic Conference Organisation) have actually BANNED the death penalty (in law or in practice). I didn't hear a peep about that from anywhere.
By headbangers I mean all the people who start screaming about stereotypes they have invented without actually checking the facts first.
It works the other way too, with Islamic views of the "West".
While I'll be very critical of many aspects of Islam - including Sharia, I think there is a battle to be fought first to even create the space for a proper debate. And the way to create that space is to start debating, and to debate everything.
I hope that clarifies where I am coming from.
Matt
Wrdtimes: Of course there are Muslims who commit violence, bigotry and abuse. Just as there are Christians and Jews who do so, as you say. But this does not mean there is not such a thing as Islamophobia and you should not deny it. It is indeed irrational. Namely, it is the irrational fear that all Muslims - and inherently the religion of Islam - are intrinsically violent, bigoted and abusive. This is false historically, internationally, and here in Britain. Most Muslims are peaceful, tolerant and democratic.
More important perhaps, is your suggestion that it seems to you that the "more devout" Muslims are the more they are likely to believe terrible things should be done to other people. This is a version of the "intrinsic" argument. It is wrong. It assigns to fundamentalism the right to define orthodoxy and what it means to be devout. I have met very devout Muslims who express their piety by being tolerant, just as with Christians.
But I am glad you said that "it seems" to you. This makes your comment an inquiry. If you had simply asserted it as a 'fact' your post would have been Islamophobic and we'd not have published it.
"Christianity is an 'organised' religion."
Is it? Can't I be a follower of Christ and not be a member of any church? Can't I interpret the Bible in my own way? Why do I have to get together with a load of other people and politicise it?
Matt, just to clarify, it's not religions that are organised that are bad, it's organised religion. I would call Christianity a faith, and the Catholic Church an organised religion. Faith motivates many people to do good, I'm not so sure that organised religion does. Religion is not something I'm interested in ever learning anything about, even if I did one day decide I believed in some God or other.
I wasn't referring to myself as an "anti-Islam headbanger". I'm more of your secularist type. There should be no Lords spiritual and no state funded religious schools. And the Church should be disestablished. They're not all as bad as Al Qaeda, but many have been in the past.
It seems to me that the elephant in the room here is Jihadi terrorism. It's impossible to discuss fear of Islam, bigotry, discrimination, etc, without acknowledging that this problem has arisen since 2001. There is a widespread fear of Islam in this country - it stems directly from the mass murder of civilians in New York, Bali, London, etc etc by small groups of fanatics operating in the name of that religion.
From this, all else springs. The tabloids - notably the Express - have played it up like anything. but it seems to me that unless we acknowledge a very real reason for peoples' fear, we won't tackle the results. People are frightened of this religion, because they don;t understand it, they feel - understandably given the bombings - that it threatens them and because the representations they see of it, in the media, are terrifying and one-sided.
When I was at secondary school, my best friend was a Muslim boy. I knew this, but it didn't mean much to me. It was just another 'exotic' religion I regarded with interest but knew little or nothing about. I had no views on it being especially good or bad, anymore than I did about Sikhism or Hinduism. My friend tended, if asked, to call himself Pakistani rather than Muslim, and any bigotry he experienced - and of course he did - was based around him being a 'Paki' rather than a believer.
I mention this because it seems to me to illustrate that it was 9/11 that really brought Islam into focus in this country - and indeed throughout the West. I would bet that the average Briton knew little or nothing about Islam before then. That was when Islamophobia was born. When 'the West' came under violent attack from extremists, people in the West - some of them, anyway - turned on the enemy within. Of course, they failed to discriminate between the actually enemy and his co-religionists: a depressingly human reaction, but probably not a surprising one.
So it seems to me that, this being the case, the question is not 'how do we stop this purely irrational tide of Islamophobia'? but 'what can we all, Muslim and non-Muslim, do to counter hatred and ignorance from both Islamic extremists and, er, the tabloid press?'
Paul Kingsnorth
Toque>I wasn't referring to myself as an "anti-Islam headbanger".
I wasn't trying to suggest that you were . Apologies for any misapprehension I might have caused.
Matt
One hopes that the analysis about "Images of Islam in UK" will expand to cover the electronic media too.
Here are a few reasons why:
There are some news editors who are fond of sensationalists wishing to see their audience to live in what Jeanne Jordan, author of The Panic diaries, calls "a world of perpetual 'duck and cover', a world of terror alerts scrolling across the bottom of our television screens. A world where evening news fees our fear." Many of us are beginning to get weary of the pushier sort of ‘expert’ declare Christopher Booker and Richard North. In their book, Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming they point out: Gone is the sense of proportion, the admission of scientific doubt, the ability to weigh risks against benefits. Taking seriously a year’s worth of their health warnings would give anyone an eating disorder. This tendency makes Anne Applebaum, author of 'Finding Things to Fear' remark: Now that we've eliminated most of the things that the human race once feared, we've just invented new ones to replace them.
The discourses of state agencies locate Islam and Muslim communities not simply as "problem communities" but as security concerns, notes Defence Studies scholar Katherine Brown. There is a need to watch out if certain contributors to this debate about minority communities wish to steer it from discussing 'politics of difference' to stirring up the 'politics of fear'.
We need to be wary of pundits who are shy, unable or unwilling to offer alternate set of
policies and positions. What we don’t deserve is another discussion that’s governed by fear and innuendo. What we don’t wish to hear from the pundits is the kind of discourse that uses
religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees opponents
not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize.
It will be interesting to examine if discussions about religio-political identity, affiliations, reading habits and opinion polls of Muslim youth have been used as the opening up of 'opportunity spaces' generated by elements who push the discourse into security-related realm.
It is more than a coincidence that reports by Newsnight’s Richard Watson depend heavily on contentious and controvertial informants who portray certain communities negatively. Dean Godson, Douglas Murray, Dominic Whitman (who openly boasts intending to "perform a witch hunt but using 21st Century tools"). It doesn't take long to spot that all these contribute to voice of negation, fear and dehumanisation. It remains unclear why the BBC continues to allow belligerent right-wingers and neocons who frequently demonize, distort and denounce identity and intentions of a certain community.
While boasting aloud about being balanced some regular commentators stoke panic and tend to trade truth for tired tautologies. Serious questions pertaining to the methodology and approach taken by some of the aforementioned persons have been raised by scholars including Dr. Marie Breen Smyth and Dr Jeroen Gunning, director and deputy director of the Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Contemporary Political Violence at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth They warn that "the politicisation of research can lead to serious distortions in debates on policy issues." There are reason to exercise caution in debates over multiculturalism, security and British Muslims.
One is yet to notice any attempts by BBC editors to widen the horizon of discussions by inviting reknowned and respectable scholars to offer alternate approaches that reinforce reflection, respect and recognition. Instead, the BBC has been pulling several of its controversial reports together to create a contentious chorus. Is it because these guys happen to be Peter Barron's pet paranoia pundits?
The BBC audiences may be saved from shallow and pallid remarks with the depth and sophistication of scholars who suggest alternate ways of explaining motives and machinations behind damning and dismissive tendencies include well-known scholars such as Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. In his works Chermus tells us about opinion makers mesmerized by John-Wayne-style tales of "real men" fighting evil on the frontier --is this why Watson periodically brings elements harping on to remind as to who must be identified and established as "evil" and then promote all policies and practices it takes to "contain evil". Is it Watson's personal inclination or part of a collective pursuit in tandem with those who lobby for stricter measures to regulate certain sections of Britain's ethnically diverse society?
Chermus draws attention to the following two experts yet to be seen on BBC's discussions on extremist or violent tendencies and their treatment by the present political authorities:
Catherine Albanese of the University of California at Santa Barbara writes: "Ordered conduct of foreign policy will, according to the conservative ethic, keep evil at bay and erect the safeguards that protect Christian life. Thus, containment for conservatives means the management of evil." But the management of evil is a lifetime task. Far from relieving anxiety, it is bound to create more of it --Albanese reminds that authorities are often unable to admit the deepest sources of their guilt without destroying their sense of who they were." So, instead, they went (and still go) looking for other people to control and blame them for their troubles. Our most recent candidates are, of course, the terrorists.
Princeton University's John F. Wilson explains why. The obsession with managing evil comes from "a concern, often exaggerated, to achieve control over those aspects of life experienced as uncertain." From the Puritans to the present, people bent on controlling their lives have been haunted by the inescapable fear that they might lose that very control.
Sensational cases startle the public into accepting a new understanding by opening gateways to the public’s fears and frustrations, and igniting processes that illuminate the boundaries of a community, notes Indiana Professor Steven Chermark adding: "The media defines these events, relying primarily on
representatives from institutions typically used in the construction of news."
Is it then a coincidence that many of Watson's informants are introduced by pseudonyms and/or with guised identities? In his report on 17 April, Watson introduced Glen Jenvey - erstwhile affiliate of the VIGIL group- as a freelance “expert”. Telling us little about this person and nothing about his background and his methods prompts many questions, as raised here by Richard Bartholomew, a PhD in the Study of Religion. : http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2006/11/15.html
It is troubling to observe Newsnight’s relentless reliance on shadowy persons/organisations prone to concealment and camouflaging real motives behind the smokescreens. Given the choices why some in the BBC subscribe to concoctions rather than cogitations? Leaving irresponsible and vacuous journalism unchecked risks reducing Newsnight as a visual manifestation of the tabloid media. One way to ensure the principles of neutrality and evenhandedness are upheld is enable the viewers notice that a process is in place that vets the 'experts' and identifies persons and organizations with verifiable credentials and background about supporters and promoters of such 'research'.
>One hopes that the analysis about "Images of Islam in UK" will expand to cover the electronic media too.
Indeed. We need Muslim voices of many shades to be heard.
Matt Wardman
Post new comment