Comment: Opposing religious bigotry is not bigotry

It is time for the Left to acknowledge that there is a conflict between reactionaries and progressives within what is referred to as ‘the Muslim Community’.

The recent controversy sparked when Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Maajid Nawaz commented on the censorship of a satirical cartoon offensive to some Muslims, has highlighted once again that British Muslims are perceived as a homogenous group with no difference of an opinion.

This is a perception widely held on the Left. More often than not, the Left sadly aligns itself with self-serving, self-appointed ‘community leaders’ that it regards as authentic voices, while truly liberal voices like Nawaz’s are shunned as those of ‘Westernised’ sell-outs.

Liberal apologists for the Islamic Right are – perversely – happy to turn a blind eye to the fact that ‘community leaders’ promote divisive religious identity politics and a narrative of perpetual victimhood. It is only a small step from religious identity politics into religion as a political ideology.

When this happens, religion becomes a tool of politics rather than a matter of private belief and personal conscience.

Religion as a political tool is detrimental both to human rights and civil liberties. It corrodes trust within society and engenders competitive forms of intolerant religious and cultural chauvinism.

The West is, of course, imperfect. But as an immigrant of Muslim background, it strikes me that many British people do not realise how privileged they are to live in a democratic, pluralist society which enshrines equal rights and protections for all its citizens in law. For most of the world’s population, this is a dream.

Witnessing unimaginable brutality driven largely by inter-religious conflict and the genocide of Muslims in the Balkans – correctly described as ‘the worst atrocity on European soil since WW2’ – has shaped my own political views. Religious and sectarian identity politics inevitably lead to hatred, resentment, and – ultimately – violence.

It was the underlying factor in the Srebrenica Genocide in which over 8000 Bosnian Muslims were murdered. It is also the underlining factor in every act of violent Jihadism, including the Woolwich murder, in which Muslims are the perpetrators.

These experiences have taught me to detest religious identity politics and to value secularism, which allows both for freedom of religion and also freedom from religion. Thus, the struggle for secularism is the struggle for equality and human rights, not against them. The values of liberal post-Enlightenment democracy underpin the freedoms and rights of everyone.

For these values to be traduced by members of a minority constitutes a perverse and self-defeating attack on the very source of their own freedoms.

Anti-Muslim bigotry from Far-Right nationalists must be tackled head on. It goes without saying that hate crimes against Muslims are unacceptable and must stop. Any attempt to introduce discriminatory policies such as preventing the building of mosques or stopping ‘Islamic immigration’ must be vehemently opposed.

But the notion that there is rampant persecution of Muslims in Britain – “open season” on UK Muslims comparable to the Nazis’ pre-war persecution of Jews, according to Liberal Democrat peer Meral Hussein-Ece, or a “Muslim civil rights crisis,” as Mohammed Ansar likes to call it – is specious. There are no special ‘Muslim Civil Rights’. There are only Civil Rights.

This imaginary persecution is really a way to disguise a reactionary political agenda. When I was shot at in Bosnia and denied education in Croatia because of my religious identity – that was persecution. Persecution is not when someone is denied special religious privileges with which to protect sexism and homophobia, or to introduce censorship and blasphemy codes or oppress other people.

Put simply, refusing to tolerate persecution by the religious does not amount to persecution of the religious. Opposing religious bigotry is not bigotry.

The fact that the Left often embraces reactionaries and fanatics from within minority religious communities, and sidelines true progressives, speaks volumes. It not only suggests the Left assume all Muslims are illiberal, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist theocrats unable to aspire or live up to ideals of democracy, equality and pluralism. It also suggests that these failures be indulged.

The Left identifies Muslims as a vulnerable minority and, on this basis, actively excuses and covers up for Islamic extremism and other nasty, regressive views that would never be tolerated if espoused by the white nationalist Far-Right. To cope with the undeniable existence of truly liberal Muslims, they are dismissed as an aberration and shunned for fear of alienating the Muslim masses.

This is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

The word Islamophobia is often invoked whenever Muslims, Islam or Islamism are discussed. But by dishonestly conflating criticism of ideas with bigotry, intolerance and the stigmatisation of their adherents, the Left is helping to re-introduce and defend blasphemy taboos by stealth.

This does not help dismiss misconceptions about Muslims – it makes them worse.

This spinelessness and intellectual dishonesty has enabled Far-Right groups such as the EDL to position themselves as the defenders of democracy; those who are unafraid to speak unpleasant and inconvenient ‘truths’ suppressed in the name of political correctness.

The reality is that, in many ways, they are the mirror image of its nemesis and a comparable menace to democracy. Until we recognise that we need to tackle Islamism and religious extremism with the same vigour and same outrage as Far-Right, their appeal will remain.

It is time for the Left to acknowledge that there is a conflict between reactionaries and progressives within what is referred to as ‘the Muslim Community’. In order to defend progressive, egalitarian values in our society, the Left must show solidarity with and support for genuinely liberal and secular Muslims.

It must cease its indulgence of the evasions and double-talk of reactionary traditionalists in the name of self-regarding cross-cultural tolerance.

It is time for people of all religions and none who believe in secularism, democracy and universal human rights to stand together and defend them against their enemies.

But to do so, we must be prepared to discard the labels we often cling to like comfort blankets and to unite around the values we wish to uphold.

Follow Lejla on Twitter

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

19 Responses to “Comment: Opposing religious bigotry is not bigotry”

  1. swatnan

    ‘Opposing religious bigotry is not bigotry’; probably the most profound statement this week. My own version would be ‘zero tolerance to the intolerant.’ I have no qualms about that at all. I have no time for bigots.
    And the ‘persecuted minority’ whingers have usually brought it on themselves, by blatantly wearing their religion on their sleeve, instead of going about their business unobtrusively. Nobody likes evenagelists and people who try and shove their type of religion down other peoples throats.

  2. scoob

    The premise of your piece is undeniable. We must not appease human rights atrocities in the name of religious tolerance, this is true. Leftist ideology should encompass diversity in peoples and not look to generalise individuals in groups as being the same. Islam does oppress in some examples and this needs to be highlighted by educated, non-bigots and stop giving far-right organisations association with the masses through fear. The left can not defend extreme violence to innocent people.

  3. Geert Wilders

    Ignorant people screaming ‘RACIST!’ in 3…2…1…

  4. Mark

    I’m with you on just about everything, but there’s one point that I reckon could do with some further scrutiny. If someone says, “Stop the builing of mosques,” they can say that with one of two thoughts in mind. 1) They are completely against the spread of mosques 100%, or 2) The sentiment lies in suspicions of how they are funded and what Qurans are being used, ie Saudi implemented Wahabism. I have heard T Robinson adhere to #2, but I also heard Christopher Hitchens say this years ago. So should the “stopping of mosque building” be vehemently opposed without scrutiny, or find out exactly who is behind the funding and what sort of “Islam” they want pushed within those mosques?
    Apparently there are plans to build a £17million mosque in Cambridge. On a community/society level, I’d ask why such an obscene amount of money should be spent on a place of worhsip, while it could be cheaper and spend more on hospitals etc, and also where has that cash come from?
    So yes, I *would* support the scrutiny of how mosques are funded, and if no Saudi influence, and everything is above board, then fine. But I wouldn’t support dismissing scrutiny out of hand.

  5. Christopher

    Who in their right mind in this day and age would want “more” Islamic immigration? Why should it be a “thought crime” to be realistic?

  6. Bob Vant

    Er…where are they, then? Couldn’t be a figment of a fevered imagination, could they?

  7. Carice00

    Why should we allow the building of mosques when Christians are persecuted, and churches demolished, in the Middle East (except Israel) and the wider Islamic world?

  8. TaksiDriver

    So because there are bigots and tyrants in the Middle East, we must behave like them?

  9. Merari

    Is that really you? If it is, we do not agree on many things and I, being Dutch, would never vote for you but you are correct in this. I would like to add though that it goes for all Abrahamic religions, not just muslims. When their hegemony is threatened they like to take on a martyrs guise and revel in calling people bigots or facists. Just look at how some people reacted to the Danish decision to outlaw the slaughtering of animals without sedation, which incidentally and as a side-effect outlaws ritual slaughter. Or how the American evangelists play the persecution card when people oppose their real and non-imaginary opression of gays.

  10. Ayesha Imam

    But some of us are Left AND Black AND Muslim AND women… The Left you refer to is (the dominant strand of?) the White Left… Certainly, I am on the Left and have no problem criticising religious bigots (in any religion) – including those (usually men) who claim to speak for women of “their’ community and that those of disagree with their (usually conservative) gender politics are not authentic members of the community.

  11. johndowdle

    I thoroughly agree with the author’s sentiments; I would like to pose another question:
    To what extent are these “belief” systems connected to religion or traditional culture?
    While the Koran advocates modest dress, this is no basis for women to be required to cover-up from head to toe; and it leaves open why the same dress code is not expected of men, does it not? Is this not a case of double standards – or hypocrisy?
    I find myself wondering just where so-called “honour” codes and killings actually come from?
    Are they based on any particular religious belief or are they just very old sets of values which pre-existed religion? I think they are the kind of clan or kith and kin sets of rules that date way back in time and have little or nothing to do with religion.
    What they expose are the absence of civilized societies, in which social and legal differences can be resolved through civil administration procedures.
    They seem to originate from backward parts of countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as areas like Jammu and Kashmir. The Saudi and similar regimes are afflicted too.
    Clearly, such backward beliefs should not be tolerated in our country when we have much more civilized ways of resolving differences.
    Also, practices involving genital mutilation of children should not be acceptable either.

  12. Chris

    Your article translates as “waah, waah, I hate the left for not supporting my beloved Iraq War, so I’ll libel them!”

  13. Rob

    And noboby does ‘bigot’ quite like the self-appointed ‘righteous’ of the left. But, swatnan, I defend your right to be a twat.

  14. ThisIsTheEnd

    You need to sack your translator. They’re doing an awful job

  15. Get Carter

    ‘The Left identifies Muslims as a vulnerable minority and, on this basis, actively excuses and covers up for Islamic extremism and other nasty, regressive views that would never be tolerated if espoused by the white nationalist Far-Right.’ The Middle class dominated Left foam at the mouth and literally wet their knickers if Working class white people are perceived in any way as racist, yet will tolerate any amount of racism, intolerance, homophobia and sexism if it comes from extremist Muslims. Contradictory and muddled? You betcha!!! The Middle class indulge in their two favourite sports: being utterly non-racist, and getting to show hatred for Working class people. I always thought Labour and Left politics was about Working class people anyway? What happened there exactly? Until we tackle all prejudice equally, and tackle the economic injustice that underpins the class system, you are all wasting your time. Class, and the economic injustice and unfairness it powerfully and stealthily promotes, is the biggest issue for most poor people, whatever their colour, ethnicity or religion or lack thereof.

  16. Get Carter

    Everyone in the world has some prejudice to promote. The problem is when huge groups of like minded people get together en masse to get their own way. Then when anyone opposes them, they scream persecution. It is the way of the world. Posh people with all the power and money in England have equated the occasional posh bashing that comes their way with racism!!!! Oh the poor lambs, getting called a ‘posh twat’ amounts to 500 years of slavery and prejudice towards African people. It’s all games, that’s all it is. Everyone plays it in one form or the other. Some are just louder and more adept that’s all.

  17. Get Carter

    People everywhere have used religion, and still do, to justify their own selfish ambitions or control freakery. Islam is now in the ascendancy and people will use that as a vehicle for their own aims. Christianity performs the same function in the US, as it did to a point during the British Empire. If you think God wants you to take over the world, I think you need to see a psychiatrist. Hitler thought God wanted him to take over the whole world. Nuff said.

  18. johndowdle

    annewareham: Daniel Hannan may have better knowledge than most of us as to how the EU actually works but when it comes to defining political ideologies I think he is deficient.
    Hitler used words like an Alice in Wonderland character to mean whatever he wanted them to mean. His entire ideology and philosophy was totally irrational and meaningless.
    When Hitler talked about socialism it was not the kind of socialism most people – then and now – understood and understand.
    Hitler’s party added the qualifying word national before socialism, which made it into something else. Arguably, it was a nonsense definition as almost anyone who understands political ideologies invariably understand socialism to be internationalist in nature.
    If Hitler had established the party, he probably would have chosen a different name.
    Therefore, using a term like national socialism is deliberately misleading and evasive.
    Hitler was never a socialist; only ever a nationalist – and a racist: something no decent socialist would ever be attracted to.
    As for fascism, Mussolini viewed this ideology as being essentially corporatist in nature.
    Today, he would – no doubt – feel right at home in this globalist corporatist world.
    Under a fascist state, the individual is nothing and the state everything. That’s how it works.
    Both Hitler and Mussolini shared a similar outlook where the state was concerned.
    This is what is meant by right-wing perspective. The state over the individual.
    Democratic socialism – which, allegedly, the Labour Party remains a party of – is an altogether different animal to the kind of pseudo-socialism Hitler and Mussolini espoused.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.