The London Marches: Have Muslims Arrived! (Iftikhar H. Malik)* Sporting a wry smile, flagging a free copy of the Muslim News under his arm and surrounded by blue and white placards reiterating respect for the Prophet while denouncing Islamophobia and racial incitement, Peter Hitchens moved around in the crowd seeking material for his next weekly column while a faithful press photographer followed him obediently. Not exactly a Sufi mentor being pursed by a budding disciple yet unsure of flock, instead a media marksman seeking out bull’s eye in the thickset! On this very cold and grey afternoon of 11 February, he and several others from print and visual media might have been disappointed as the speeches here were quite conciliatory affirming belief in Islam as well as in Britain. Unlike the protest demonstration of 3 February with Al-Muhajiroon and Al-Ghuraba flagging some inflammatory placards and led by firebrands such as Ajem Chaudhary, here the crowd was alive yet responsible and civic. Of course, there were men with flowing beards and some even sporting turbans yet they were a sea apart from the few hundred loudmouths who had previously chanted ferociously outside the Danish Embassy in Knightsbridge. Here the banners decried the clash of cultures and instead quite a few men, scarved women and young children carried the Union Jack. They were certainly anguished over cartoons gratuitously satirising the Prophet in the Jyllands-Posten, which embodies a Star of David on its Mast leading some Muslims to allege “a Zionist conspiracy”. The reprinting of the cartoons across the Continent under the pretext of freedom of speech—as if this was the only way to reaffirm it—had led to the Trafalgar Rally on the 11th February, followed by even a five-time bigger and equally peaceful March on the 18th. The world-wide Muslim anger, which in some cases in Syria, Beirut, Indonesia, Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan was unjustifiably violent, has been criticised presumptuously by some opinion groups as if Muslim values were simply and only religion-based while Europe’s were strictly secularist. Such a judgemental demarcation is both flimsy and insidious as it substantiates a clash of cultures besides irresponsibly othering Europe’s disadvantaged communities. Muslim anger cab be fathomed on five counts: firstly, some Western groups are intent upon demonising Muslims, and the cartoons—though of no artistic quality whatsoever-- were nefariously and mendaciously harnessed to hurt them. Secondly, powerful sections in the media pursue double standards and here Muslims would proffer a host of examples. For instance, Fleming Rose of the same Danish paper had earlier refused to publish cartoons of Jesus for the fear of a public uproar, and Europe has certainly several of its own untouchables who remain sacrosanct. As reported in the press and email messages, when asked by New York Times about the possibility of publishing a cartoon in JP of Ariel Sharon smothering a Palestinian baby, Rose plainly said “no” as it would be considered racist. This revelation came on the heels of disclosure of Rose’s closer links with Professor Daniel Pipes, who, in fact, received the former in Philadelphia. Several Muslim youth groups in Europe fear that the New-Conservative elements want Europe to turn against its Muslim citizens so as to fully join the campaign for reordering the Middle East in line with the US-Israeli dictum. Thirdly, it is mere colour and class-based arrogance which is being dished out in the name of freedom of speech and value differentials whereas real purpose is both to hurt and further humiliate Muslims as has been seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. As observed by Kiku Day, a Danish researcher in London, Denmark has been dangerously sliding into a xenophobic nationalism since the 1990s as 200,000 Muslims in the country remain marginalised. As elaborated in her piece, “Denmark’s New Values” in the Guardian on 15 February, Muslims have not been allowed even to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Fourthly and quite powerfully, Muslims all over Europe and the United States feel that even after even almost half a century they are still viewed as aliens and “the enemy from within” whose differentiation and denigration will somehow quarantine and safeguard the dominant cultures. Fifthly, Muslims, more than any other group, receive the blame for not integrating though the fact remains that since the Salman Rushdie affair, the Balkan crisis and then the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslims, especially the younger among them, have been overwhelmingly politicised. Their professionalized associations, discussion groups, email networks and now these mass-based, vocal but equally disciplined marches only reveal a mass mobilisation of these people whose voting patterns in all the post-2003 elections manifest a greater institutionalisation of their political articulation. This development of no minor significance somehow remains unacknowledged by observers while a misplaced focus is allocated to a few rhetoricians. That is where the diversity and the impressive participation at the Muslim Rally and then the March a week later have affirmed a greater level of mobility as well as integration within the civic traditions of a pluralist Britain. In-between, well-attended seminars organised by Muslim youth groups across the country have sought a healthier debate on a wide array of issues. For instance, on 17 February, more than a hundred young Muslim professionals debated subjects like going beyond the reaction on cartoons to further professionalize British Muslims who may effectively use available institutions besides becoming the role models for despondent younger elements. Convened under the auspices of the City Circle, this group of younger Muslim men and women has been meeting on weekly basis over the past decade or so to review a wide variety of issues while reflecting a strong belief in their Britishness and has been operating as an open forum for diverse ideas and participants---a world apart from those extremists demonstrating in Knightsbridge. Many journalists, especially after 7/7, have been failing to understand the demographic and ideological changes within the British Muslims and keep on producing alarmist statements by irresponsibly zeroing in on Muslims. For instance, Littlejohn, not known for any healthier view on multiculturalism, thus headlined his column on 6 February in Daily Mail: “The Islamonazis are as hell-bent on world domination as Hitler”, and observed: “This is a war. And I hate to say it, but we’re losing”. One wonders, how more sensational and jingoistic one could get! Unlike France, Holland, Germany, Denmark and several other such places, British Muslims are eager to make their presence felt and are learning to use the available public space more responsively and judiciously. They certainly want to break the insidious routine of a few Muslim firebrands being paraded willingly or irresponsibly by the media as the spokesmen for the entire Muslim community. Some scepticism about the numbers in the Trafalgar Rally displayed either nonchalance or owed to a stereotype of Muslims being a passive and rather indifferent community which has left its affairs to an unruly group of miscreants. Tony Parsons’s column in the Mirror on 13 February put the number over 50,000 while strongly bemoaning the lack of proper media coverage to this major event compared to the newsworthiness of a 500-strong demonstration of the preceding week. Certainly, the Sunday papers on February 12, without any exception, had relegated the rally to their inner pages and that too in a rather insignificant style. For instance, the Sunday Times, somehow and ironic enough, preferred to carry a banner news and the picture on its front page of a Yorkshire cleric for having delivered some fiery sermon. The Sunday Telegraph and likewise the Independent and the Observer devoted some minor columns to the Trafalgar Rally but an avid reader could not fail to notice a strong element of disinterestedness towards a cross-ethnic Muslim initiative for asserting a British/Western identity by strongly disproving a few irresponsible elements within parading as latter-day Saladins. One may give credit to Edwina Curry, the former Conservative member of John Major’s cabinet, who, in a BBC interview on the same Sunday, expressed her surprise of “the liberal media” for not showing British Muslims hoisting Union Jack on the front pages. However, unsurprisingly, Emma Duncan of the Economist, in the same interview, felt that the rally had been “ambiguous and small”. Duncan, the author of a book on Pakistan during the 1980s, based on a short and whirlwind tour of the country and deriving in its entirety from less than a dozen interviews—all the way from an oversexed Brigadier to an ethnic militant in Karachi—certainly represented those arm chair pundits who never tire of exposing the multiple crimes of the world’s have-nots. Her column in Sunday Telegraph on 19 February chose to talk of her stress owing to post-industrial changes in lifestyles when working mothers have to depend more and more on Polish/East European nannies who, after teaching Polish to their children, run away with their husbands. To a stressed Duncan, like 7 million other Briton as per report by BUPA, the future does not bode well for Europe and England as Iraq and Afghanistan might someday become the EU members and South East England will be full of Muslims turning “all the churches into mosques” and property prices having totally collapsed. One wonders, how more biased one could get! Certainly, not all journalists are prying on poor dislocated Afghan booksellers or Punjabi peasants for their juicy stories to churn out bestsellers, as they also include highly respectable names such as John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Ed Vulliamy, Adam LeBor and many more, who articulate with responsibility and conviction. The March on 18 February was certainly unique as it had Muslims from all over the United Kingdom, who had come in to assert their multiple identities besides expressing their own belief in the sanctity of the Prophethood. The two most important features of this March were: the diversity of the crowd with an overwhelming visibility of first-generation Muslims, and secondly, about 40 of the participants were women, who were not only vocal but also raised slogans in English. The enthusiasm, orderliness and politeness of these people displayed a greater confidence in British democratic traditions and their active participation demystifies all those myths of Muslims being docile and apolitical contrasted with the images of younger Muslims parading as violent, unruly and balaclava-clad elements. It is ironical that the media presence on this second occasion was quite meagre, even compared to the Rally, and the coverage in the Sunday papers was almost non-existent. Interestingly, Sunday Telegraph, in its issue of 19 February, selectively and rather mischievously headlined: “Polls reveal 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK”, while relegating all the other positive indicators such as 91 per cent who “still say they feel loyal to Britain”, to an inner page. Here again, in a two-page interview, Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, a self-styled scholar of Islam, warned: “The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state”. Mr. Sookhdeo, certainly with a Hindu family name and hailing from Guyana, is briefly introduced as a Muslim covert to Christianity, who currently heads the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. With his kind of extreme Islamophobia and such unabashed views on British Muslims one only wonders about the nature of Institute’s work, if, purportedly, it is supposed to be a research organisation! The powerful weekly, once again, did not lag behind in alerting its readers to this inner threat that had already produced 7 July bombers. While some other critics may warn Western liberal groups against nannying Muslims for the fear of adding to their wrath and outreach, they feel as if the fury over a few cartoons spawning rallies across Europe is a temporary blimp. In fact, as seen during the drawn riots in France having nothing to do with the cultures or religion as such, the politicisation of the new Europeans is a recent development where economy, politics and foreign policies have all played a crucial role in agitating the younger groups born and brought up here. Many of them are using local available channels, study groups and the Internet in particular, to make their presence felt—away from sheer marginalisation and covert demonisation— and reflect a greater sense of maturity and sharing. Some of them may retain a higher proportion of anger or excitement but they are unwilling to sit back while vital decisions affecting millions across the world are made over and above their heads. Commentators like Timothy Garton Ash are justifiably advising for the availability of media platforms for an intra-Muslim dialogue besides channelling a greater interface with the community at large. Multiculturalism may have its own limitations and especially after 7/7 it has registered some expected reproach yet its teething difficulties should not make us oblivious to the strides made so far in accepting diversity and ensuring greater participation. Muslims and their friends from across the British society are not just seeking a greater respect only for themselves, they are equally paving the way for more tolerance towards similar other plural communities. Thus, Muslim articulation and demarche must not be seen merely a Muslim-West issue, but may be appreciated as a noble effort for greater understanding and communal harmony. Withdrawing from the initiative by exceptionalsing Islam or simply denigrating Muslims as the trouble makers would neither help the mainstream society nor the minorities. The emergence of “moderate” Muslim factor in the British politics is as much aimed against the BNP-style xenophobia as it is meant for fellow firebrands who become willing or even inadvertent partners in a vicious ploy where misrepresentation of Muslims in particular and other communities in general refuses to give way to more judicious representations. Thus, the exact number of those present in the Trafalgar Rally or these participants in the Trafalgar-Hyde Park March a week later might be contested or simply ignored by Peter Hitchens, Emma Duncan and others yet the fact remains that the status quo for a vast majority of concerned people is not a feasible option and by harnessing the democratic and civic institutions; communities like Muslims are positively intent upon being heard, seen and taken along! -------------------Professor of History, Bath Spa University, Bath BA2 9BN: ihm50@yahoo.com http://users.bathspa.ac.uk/mali1