My Problem With Islam

[Cain]

I've been reconsidering some of my more reflexive political positions of the past few years.  This essay is the result of one of them.  It is something I rushed off quickly, so there may be some typos and errors I missed - however, all the statistics reported are correct, and taking either from reputable polling companies (UK Polling) or news organisations (Channel 4).


A lot of stupid shit has been said about Islam and Muslims in the past decade or so.  In fact, if all the ink spilled on asserting ridiculous conspiracy theories with Muslims as the main characters were gathered up in one place, it would probably be enough to drown a small city in.  At the very least.

Such stupid shit has, of course, provoked a backlash. In the UK, the political left has divided fairly neatly into pro-and-anti Muslim factions –usually the pro-Muslim factions are critical of our interventionist foreign policy, the erosion of civil liberties and of American counter-terrorism generally, while their opposites argue for the necessity of such measures.  As the shine has worn off interventionism, asserting the natural superiority of Enlightenment values, puffing up a civilizational war etc the left in the UK has generally gone to the pro-Muslim position, at least in the mainstream.  Most recently, the maverick politician George Galloway secured victory in the Bradford by-election through shameless pandering to the Muslim community there – especially on the topics of Palestine and Iraq.

The problem with that is this: in protecting Muslims (quite rightly too) from unwarranted attacks, vicious smearing and complete stitch-up jobs by Special Branch, the left over here has overlooked the obvious problem with a large number of Muslims in this country: that they are odious shits, with 14th century views on the place of women, homosexuals and apostates/atheists, and that their political influence is only to set to grow over the next two decades, and that they are providing political cover for them by refusing to discuss these issues.

According to the most standard projections, the UK will have a 10% or so Muslim population by 2030 – well below what the "Eurabia" conspiracy theorists suggest, but a not insignificant figure.  Furthermore, the distribution of the Muslim population will not be equally spread out through the country.  Instead, it will be concentrated in places like Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham and my own dear North London (the infamous Finsbury Park Mosque is only a short stroll from my apartment).  Areas where numbers can plausibly be turned into political representation at a national level, in other words.

Islamist terrorism has long been considered the major risk to the UK.  This view suggests that small cells of poorly coordinated plotters, often supported by training camps in Pakistan or Yemen or occasionally Somalia, and their bombs, represent the pre-eminent risk to the British state as we understand it.  This view is clearly flawed.  While nations like Pakistan, Iraq and Syria may fall to Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism, the UK is not so weak, nor so defenceless.  With a surveillance state that would be the envy of Stalin, the world's third biggest military budget, a mostly homogenous nation with long-entrenched political institutions (and a powerful, if mostly unseen, secret security apparatus) is not going to fall because of a fraction of 3% of the population have been reading updated versions of the Anarchist's Cookbook.

Instead of the Middle Eastern scenarios mentioned above, I would like to consider the model presented to us by the United States.  In the post-war years up until the early 1970s, organized religion had little say in the political affairs of the nation.  Sure, Catholics and Evangelicals might organize competing "get the vote out" contests in this or that race, but by and large, on a national level, religion did not have a say.  However, the collapse of support for Democrats in the South, followed by Nixon's Southern Strategy meant one particular political party had to suck up heavily to the religious sensibilities of the Southern States, especially in its more ugly and racist forms, to secure electoral victory.  This opened the door to large-scale infiltration of the right by religious, fundamentalist elements who had no respect for the more pluralistic, secular strands of US political history and thinking, and who violently opposed social liberalism and freedom on a number of grounds.

While Americans panicked about the far left and the far right carrying out assassinations and bombing plots, it was the non-violent extremists who managed an electoral coup, seizing control of much of the machinery of the Republican Party, leading it to its current sorry state.  And helping to lay the groundwork for the destruction of more than a few countries, the environment, civil liberties and health issues along the way.  A sign of how far they have gone in framing the debate is how many Republicans have signed up on the current war on women's reproductive rights.

My fear is that while everyone in the UK focuses on the terrorist threat, and attempting to tar every Muslim with the "terrorist brush", organised groups seeking greater political power will increasingly have the power and resources to set the agenda, or at least force concessions on government in line with their fundamentalist views, in return for some kind of support or another.

This is no idle fear.  One third of British Muslims seem to think killing apostates is acceptable.  Getting a divorce under Sharia Law is almost impossible for a woman (legal divorce is still an option, but for many devout Muslim women, Imams will outright ignore their concerns or issues in favour of the husband, regardless of the situation, making an Islamic divorce all but impossible).  Over a third want Sharia Law implemented fully in the UK.  Over 60% think insulting Islam or the Prophet Mohammed should be a criminal offence.  In Pakistan, where the majority of Muslim immigration to the UK originates from, support for sanctions such as stoning adulterers to death or chopping hands off of criminals are in the high seventies, or even higher.

While many older Muslims are more moderate in their views, and indeed there is almost no support for Islamist terrorism among the British UK population (below 10%), these are still disturbingly high numbers.  More worryingly, much of the Islamic community in the UK seems to prefer to pander to these extremists instead of the more moderate population.  Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, for example, one of the most influential Muslim scholars in the UK, agrees that apostates should be executed.  Saudi Arabia furnishes Muslim schools and learning centres with anti-Semitic texts.    The chairman of the Muslim Association of Schools agrees with killing apostates.

While this is a minority of troublemakers right now, their numbers are set to increase.  Some would point to the BNP as a similar fringe group, but the BNP's support is at about 2% of the UK – they do not even have seats in Parliament, and their accounts are in a shambles.  By contrast, support for these kind of views among Muslims is in the double digits.  Furthermore, on certain issues, they will almost certainly be able to build alliances with existing political blocs – one can easily imagine Muslim MPs of a fundamentalist bent agreeing to cooperate with Nadine Dorries and other Tory backbenchers to launch an assault on abortion, as just one example.

As I say, it is the US model which worries me.  There is a clear precedent for a fundamentalist, non-violent minority seizing a major slice of power in a democratic, secular state, and using it to advance their deeply illiberal agenda.  So long as the UK left continues to wear rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Muslim illiberalism in the UK, a similar scenario could be played out here. 

I don't know exactly what the answer is.  The solutions I was schooled in tend to be of a more permanent kind than are normally allowed in contemporary European politics (and make a terrible mess, too).  If I had to hazard a guess though, I would say it would be something like this: stop protecting these people from the consequences of their own nasty worldview.  Push back, and hard.  Don't support hate speech legislation, especially where the possibility exists that it can be used to squelch legitimate criticism.  Don't allow yourself to be intimidated into silence by religious bullies and thugs.  Apart from that, I'm open to suggestions.

[Don Coyote]

Well I learned how the religious right got to where it is in America, and seeing how Muslim fundamentalists could end up in the same position in the UK, and likely the US, is rather frightening.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Food for thought there.

Most of the Muslims I've interacted with tend to be more moderate...kind of like lapsed Catholics. But that's the ones who talk to me.

I've always thought of it as fundamentalism being the problem, Christian or Muslim no matter. Have to mull over this for awhile.

[Cain]

Well, that's just it.  Most Muslims I know are perfectly decent people as well.  But the opinion polls, projected trends and UK political culture suggests, unless something changes, that we're going to see greater representation given to these kind of views.  And I'm not comfortable with that at all.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

OK, I see. Kind of like wingnut holyrollers got to be a political force here. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The only thing i can think of is an outright ban on religious speech from politicians and official state atheism with the freedom for the citizen to practice their religion. That and revoking tax exempt status for religious organizations who try their hand at influencing races or influence their congregations on political matters. Matter of fact unlikely that the latter would happen i imagine it would be quite effectful for that.

[Cain]

An outright ban on religious speech is essentially banning free speech for public officials.  That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.  Also official state atheism hasn't really helped in the USA, has it?  In fact, John Gray has made the case that it has made things worse.  Also, tax-exempt status doesn't matter for groups who are getting bankrolled by Saudi Arabia.

The problem isn't going to be solved by political reform.  It's only going to be solved by changing the minds of the majority of British Muslims.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Well, we're still trying to figure out what to do about chilling out our christians.

Also the hypocrisy is sometimes beyond their understanding. Its ok to bang someone elses wife and go to lesbian shows and people would never have figured you for a staunch christian until you start bellowing about how this is a christian country that atheists are trying to ruin. (i am thinking of a specific christian i know irl). I imagine its the same with muslim fundamentalists.

Setting up a centrist party that describes itself as centrist because no one wants to listen to extremist assholes?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Said party doesnt even have to win anything. It just has to provide a sense that a lot of people are not intersted in extremism- which may or may not cause other parties to avoid pandering to the religious.

[Cain]

The UK has three parties - the Tories, who are somewhere between the Democrats and the Republicans, Labour, who are to the left of the Democrats (but not by much) and the Lib Dems - who span the spectrum but wont matter after next election because they screwed their voter base.  None of our parties are especially extreme, but all of them are willing to do stupid shit if it benefits their electoral chances.

As a rule, Labour get more Muslim votes, but the more Christian Tories get some support too.  Baron Warsi for example, was quite vehement in supporting the idea of Europe as a "Christian continent".  Between those two parties, there is almost a complete stranglehold on UK politics, and both of them will find reasons to appease Muslim extremists if it gives them more voters, especially after Bradford. 

One measure that might work is rolling back the faith schools and academies which allow Islamic orthodoxy to go unquestioned.  Another might be a greater insistence on teaching English to immigrants and the children of immigrants, to further integration and allow them access to media with alternative viewpoints to religious propaganda.  Also confronting these people, debating them and showing them to be wrong.

[Junkenstein]

A couple of thoughts.

The first being is there a reliable breakdown on extremist views by age? Most younger Muslims I've dealt with have been relatively progressive. While this isn't particularly helpful now, it gives an idea of a future trend that may be quite indicative of how the problems may escalate (or not?)

Secondly is the idea of king making/breaking. The UK has already had some experience with this with Northern Ireland being influential beyond expectations, and I can see a similar situation arising. The abortion example is a prominent one, but what about Sharia ideas/ideals being adopted in other areas? Banking springs to mind.

I really need to think more about this. I have a tendency to equate "fundamentalist XXX" to "Idiot XXX" without really examining what the core ideas are that they're trying to preserve. In a lot of power structures convictions are convincing. Taking a line and sticking to it regardless gets a lot of respect. Those who change their beliefs noticeably tend not to hang on to power for long as they become perceived as easily swayed or weak willed.

Going to shut up and think more before I just keep vomiting words.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Confronting people often doesnt work though. Teabaggers taught me that with their reactions (ive only ever communicated with one who understood the definition of communism). But the idea of exposing them to differing view points would work. The problem is that as a liberal american the idea of yer gert ter learn englirsh! Makes me itch a little. Though the yo cain thread was partly inspired my ruminating about having a global conlang that everyone speaks while listening to loud music. Problem is that esperanto is for dorks and everyone knows that and no one wants to be a dork. Plus iran hates esperanto because bahai endorses it.

[Cain]

A couple of thoughts.

The first being is there a reliable breakdown on extremist views by age? Most younger Muslims I've dealt with have been relatively progressive. While this isn't particularly helpful now, it gives an idea of a future trend that may be quite indicative of how the problems may escalate (or not?)

Not precisely, but it seems younger Muslims are more extreme than their elders, the 18-25 set in particular.  They tend to score higher on percentages agreeing with the introduction of Sharia Law, killing apostates, stoning adulterers etc.

It also depends by what metrics you're measuring progressive.  For instance, Malaysia is often cited as an example of a modern, progressive and moderate Muslim country - lots of internet surfing, music listening, TV show pirating kids with iPhones - but at the same time, 92% of them think you should be whipped for drinking alcohol, 95% think sex before marriage should be a criminal offence and 72% think a thief should have their hand chopped off.

While there are a lot of signifiers of a potentially progressive nature, it doesn't always hold up on examination.

Secondly is the idea of king making/breaking. The UK has already had some experience with this with Northern Ireland being influential beyond expectations, and I can see a similar situation arising. The abortion example is a prominent one, but what about Sharia ideas/ideals being adopted in other areas? Banking springs to mind.

I can see that being something that would go down very badly.  In fact, baiting them and the financial sector to get in a fight could be amusing for all.

My main worry is the convergence on things like freedom of speech with Labour, and women's rights/reproductive rights with the Tories.

[Cain]

Confronting people often doesnt work though. Teabaggers taught me that with their reactions (ive only ever communicated with one who understood the definition of communism). But the idea of exposing them to differing view points would work. The problem is that as a liberal american the idea of yer gert ter learn englirsh! Makes me itch a little. Though the yo cain thread was partly inspired my ruminating about having a global conlang that everyone speaks while listening to loud music. Problem is that esperanto is for dorks and everyone knows that and no one wants to be a dork. Plus iran hates esperanto because bahai endorses it.

It depends how you confront them.  Hostile confrontations, with mockery, are not going to change anyone's minds, no.  But they're not meant to.  They're meant to shame the person in question, and are done for the benefit of the crowd.  Other approaches can and do work, though.

Well, America is exceptional, in that it is an immigrant nation, founded equally by non-English and non-Europeans as it was by a bunch of English wannabe aristocrats.  Proficiency in English is already required for UK citizenship, but the current government has cut programs for people to learn English on, which does not help anything.  Realistically, if we just have a state/private school system like we used to, the language thing would not be an issue anyway, since the kids at the very least would be using it every day in class.  But with the introduction of religious schools and academies, you can have schools where speaking Urdu, or Hindi, or Latin, or Yiddish, are written into the rules.  And if they live their entire lives in a community that speaks only that language, then yes, there are going to be a host of problems associated with that.  The govenment has made large strides in accomodating people who speak foreign languages (Most government forms are available in a language of your choice, the police employ interpreters etc) but, at the same time, they're going to be missing out on a lot if they cannot converse with the majority of people in the country.

If they don't want to converse with those people, then fair enough, it is their choice, but bringing them up in such a community, sending them to such schools is denying them that choice in the first place.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Gotcha. That makes a more sense for not america. It was a bit of a knee jerk feeling i admit.

Not to threadjack but uk allows you to get citizenship if you learn scots gaelic, welsh and or irish in lieu of english right? I know they did at one point and i think the idea is ridiculous even though i am an obvious proponent of preserving and expanding celtic languages.