Reclaiming Jihad

What comes to your mind when you think of jihad?

You would be forgiven if it didn’t have positive connotations. The media and public discourses around jihad are framed by acts of political violence and killing, such as September 11^th 2001.

The Muslim community have tried to correct such a gross misunderstanding of the word. They spoke of how jihad means struggle, a struggle for righteousness, justice and mercy. They spoke of how mindless killing could not be more divorced from the spiritual endeavour (both internal and external) that is indicated by the word jihad.

Jihad has so overwhelmingly been associated with violence and killing, that Muslims sometimes refer to it as the J-word, conscious that its very mention can cause concern.

But now it’s time to redefine jihad. To reclaim jihad.

When you think of the crowds in Tunisia, who changed global politics forever by ousting Ben Ali, think of jihad. When you think of the Egyptians, who through patience and adversity stood united and defiant in the face of a stubborn Pharaoh who fell like Ozymandias, think of jihad. And indeed, when you think of Libyans, who confront a dictator more than willing to kill his own people, think of jihad.

In fact, don’t just think of jihad. Think of the highest, most celebrated, most beloved, type of jihad. Think of the very pinnacle of the meaning of jihad.

This is not a matter of subjective opinion, but of theological truth.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

“The best jihad is to speak a word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler”

Every protestor took part in fulfilling this deeply profound prophetic teaching, and went to the very core of the meaning of jihad.

Every placard held in Freedom Square was ‘word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler’. Every blog written, every chant, even the moments of silence met the criteria.

Now, more than ever we should be reclaiming the beautiful word that is jihad.

NB: For those interested in the reference for the hadith, its quoted by several muhadith including Ibn Majjah on the authority of Abu Saeed, Ahmed and Ibn Majjah and Tabarani and Baihaqi on the authority of Abu Umamah and Ahmed and Nisa’i on the authority of Tariq Ibn Shihab.

A few questions for Mr Cameron...

“Muslims must embrace our British values” argues David Cameron in a speech delivered in Munich.

Well, I have a few questions for our Prime Minister about this all.

Why the division between Muslim and British?

Perhaps Muslim values and British values are not so different? As a British Muslim, I have found a lot of common ground, on family values, a culture of charity, even stoicism (the ‘stiff upper lip’).

And since we're on the topic, what are ‘British values’? You talk of freedom and equality. These are not just British values, they are Muslim values, they are secular values, they human values. No one would reject them as being virtuous.

But if you try to get more precise than this, we run into problems. The diversity of opinion in Britain, as in any country, precludes making such generalised and grand statements as ‘British values’, unless you include all values held by Britons, the full diversity of them.

I find it uncomfortable how you talk of ‘Muslims’ who must embrace ‘our British values’. I was born in Britain, raised in Britain, educated in Britain. I speak English as well you. I’m not sure why my values, which are born out of my Muslim faith, are not considered ‘British’? Do you not consider me British?

Maybe it's worth remembering that Muslims have been in Britain for centuries, not decades, and have been contributing to British life for just as long.

Intergration is a two-way process. Perhaps it’s time you embraced Muslims as part of Britain?

Has multiculturalism really failed, or are you just being fashionable?

Multiculturalism was the buzz word of the 90s, these days it’s all about ‘intergration’ and ‘community cohesion’.

Buzz words aside, we're really still having the same conversation I think.

There are two sides to multiculturalism. First is the reality, then there is the hope.

The reality is that there different cultures in Britain, these cultures are not just ‘white’ and ‘ethnic’. They are Welsh cultures, Muslim cultures, student cultures, working-class cultures. There is even a discernible ‘rich Oxbridge politician’ culture. They all weave into the fabric of the society we live in. There is no denying it.

Then there is the hope of multiculturalism. This is that these different cultures can interact and engage with each other. That they can find common ground in a shared identity with shared ambitions of the world they want to live in. This is not a two-way conversation, it’s a conversation takes place between lots of groups and cultures, over a long period of time. More than just 30 years.

So perhaps a bit early to call multiculturalism a failure. Especially when it's delivered success in so many areas. Feel free to visit Cardiff for an example. Or Liverpool. Or London. The vibrancy and life of these cities is due to the diversity of those who live there.

You talk of living 'separate lives'. The only ones I find who live 'separate lives' are the super rich, who live in a bubble away from the struggles and concerns of the majority of Britain. Who are so lacking in contact with everyone else they think there is no recession and Brits have 'never had it so good'.

The problems faced by society today have little to do with multiculturalism, which is a scape-goat for social ills caused by poverty, unemployment and disillusionment.

If you really want to solve the problems society faces, you have to be honest about the causes.

Is this about Muslims, or about foreigners? I’m getting a bit confused.

You talk about the need for ‘equality and freedom’, but suddenly you start talking about ‘ensuring immigrants learn to speak English’. Big jump there. Did I miss something?

And then there’s the bit where you say ‘when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.’

Okay, we seem to be blurring the lines here a bit. There are plenty of white Muslims out there, have you been too cautious to stand up to them as well? Or only the brown ones? Or are you really just making naïve assumptions of ethnicity and religion based upon skin colour?

Surely you’re more educated and nuanced than that.

Why did you deliver this speech at a European security conference?

Violent extremism is a threat and a danger that should be combated with no hesitations.

But perhaps it’s worth remembering, that out of 294 terrorist attacks in Europe in 2009, only one was carried out by a Muslim.

Regards,
Someone who didn’t vote for you. Or Nick Clegg for that matter.

NB: At time of publishing this blog, David Cameron had not yet delivered his speech, but speeches are released early to the press. As I'm not a fan of writing in the future tense, since I find it a bit weird and almost prophetic in tone, I've written in the past tense. I do however hope Cameron has a change of heart and decides to deliver a speech on fiscal reduction instead.

Slacktivism, Armchairism and Apptivism

2011 has certainly started on a promising note.

Tunisia ousted Ben Ali, ending decades of tyranny and offering the fragile hope of a more free, open and successful society.

The past week has seen awesome scenes in Egypt. Pundits and commentators talked of a ‘clash of civilisations’ in Egypt at the end of December, predicting Christian and Muslim tensions. The fallacy of such notions was dismissed when, unpredicted by all self-professed experts, the country rose up against the tyrant Mubarak. The streets of Cairo fills up with protestors daily, Muslims and Christians side by side.

The world also saw duplicity with which US foreign policy operates; invading Iraq in 2003 in the name of ‘democracy’, while simultaneously providing "military aid to Egypt [that] totals over $1.3 billion annually". It is this Egyptian army that has racked up a death count of 300 innocent protestors, and currently stands between the Egyptian people and an ousted Mubarak.

But the topic of this blog is not to add to the rolling and constant commentary on the unpredicted and unpredictable events in Egypt or Tunisia or the rest of the Middle East.

Rather, it’s to express dismay at the rise of the slacktivist, also known as the armchair acitivist, also known as the apptivist. The idea is pretty simple – Egyptians risk life and limb to protest, the slacktivsit tweets, clicks, and blogs his or her protest (yes, I’m a tweeter, a clicker and of course, a blogger).

It’s not that the tweeting, clicking or blogging is the problem. The problem is when it ends there.

We may not be in Egypt, or Tunisia, or Yemen. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t work to do. We don’t live in a utopia (…yet). Whether you live in the UK, the US or the Russian Federation (most my readers come from those three countries apparently!), there is plenty to be doing.

Poverty, injustice, oppression aren't absent.

The actions of protestors in the Middle East and elsewhere should remind us our duty to our community, the place in which we live.

For the believer, the action of the protestors should remind us of God’s appointment of mankind as “vice-regents of God on earth”, and the weight of this responsibility.

In the meantime, I’ll be heeding the words of Suhaib Webb, and remember Egypt in my prayers.

Chris Allen on the 'i' word.

Below I've linked to a blog post by Chris Allen, Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham. Chris has spent the past decade studying and campaigning on the increasingly prevalent trend of Islamophobia in Britain, and has quite literally written the book on Islamophobia.

He address succintly Baroness Warsi's statements that anti-Muslim prejudice has become socially acceptable, and also the Quilliam Foundations claims that 'Islamophobia' is a word that should be avoided, lest the terrorists win the battle for our words. I'd highly highly recommend reading, link below.

Anti-Muslim Prejudice? It's just Islamophobia in sheep's clothing - reflections on Baroness Warsi and Quilliam's comments.

There are a wealth of academic researchers, with years and often decades of experience in research on Islam and Muslims in Britain. Chris Allen is one such researcher, but there are many others. It would be beneficial if less attention was given to pseudo-academic think tanks and more time given to experienced and established researchers.

Jack Straw and racialising crime

I’ve been deliberately trying to avoid blogging for some time, as commitments in other regards needed to be given priority.

But some words have to be offered on Jack Straw’s recent comments that Pakistani men use ‘white girls’ as ‘easy meat’ for sexual exploitation.

I was genuinely dumb struck when reading the news story, further still when reading a chorus of supportive comments from different quarters. His full comments were: -

“Pakistanis, let's be clear, are not the only people who commit sexual offences, and overwhelmingly the sex offenders' wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders.

But there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men... who target vulnerable young white girls.

We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way.

These young men are in a western society, in any event, they act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically.

So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care... who they think are easy meat.

Because they're vulnerable they ply them with gifts, they give them drugs, and then of course they're trapped.”

Jack Straw is not alone in making comments indicating a racial and cultural source for sexual crime in the UK. David Davies, a Conservative MP in Wales stated early last year after a rape case involving young Asian men: -

“There do seem to be some people in some communities who don't respect women's rights at all, and who... without necessarily saying that this is the case on this occasion, who have imported into this country barbaric and medieval views about women.”

It is worrying that such views are so common amongst politicians.

Needless to say, both Jack Straw’s and David Davies’ comments reek of a subtle racism and xenophobia.

To begin, we see quite clearly in Jack Straw’s comments the repeated motif of the sexually aggressive and licentious non-white who seeks innocent and vulnerable white women.

This motif in Western and British culture is more common than perhaps is comfortable to admit, and speaks once again of Orientalism. One simply has to refer to 19^th and 20^th century British erotic literature, with black market bestsellers such as ‘The Lustful Turk’, ‘A Night in a Moorish Harem’ and ‘The Sheik’, all of which are fictional accounts of a sexually aggressive foreigner sexually abusing and raping an innocent white woman. Somehow this sordid literature had a receptive audience.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, there is an underlying process here of racialisation of the crimes committed by Asian offenders. By racialisation I refer to the process by which the crime is given cultural, religious and race-based motivations when they may in fact be absent.

When a white offender commits a crime, it is unlikely his cultural or racial background is referred to as a source for the crime. There are plenty of examples. Refer your mind back to any case with major media interest (there are so many cases involving white sexual offenders it seemed unnecessary to post examples).

The common discourse is that the offender is an individual, responsible for his crime, perhaps motivated by deep personal issues. Yet the community he may belong to, his racial background and similar factors are not seen as motivations.

With the crimes referred to above, in which the offenders are of an Asian background, the motivations for their crime are immediately attributed to race, cultural background and religion.

Jack Straw’s empty words that ‘Pakistanis… are not the only people who commit sexual offences’ are followed by statements that hold to account a whole ethnic community. His comments make it clear that the culture of the men are more to blame than the offenders themselves – and those Pakistanis who have not committed sexual offences have done so in spite of a culture that pushes them towards it.

David Davies’ comments are similar. Despite there being countless horrific sexual crimes committed by white, British born, offenders – he believes it is the ‘barbaric and medieval views about women’ from other countries that are to blame.

To address these crimes, it is necessary to ask ourselves the real questions.

What motivates men to commit sexual crime?

What factors expose young girls to sexual predators?

If we seek to answer these questions honestly, then I suspect the answers will be the same regardless of the race of offender or victim.

Not Ashamed

Not Ashamed is a campaign launched by Christian Concern, and backed by Lord Carey (former Archbishop of Canterbury).

It calls upon Christians to be more confident in their faith against an “attempt to ‘air-brush’ the Christian Faith out of the picture”.

I sympathise with many of Lord Carey’s concerns, as stated in the campaign leaflet. Britain does indeed owe much to the Christian faith, from the UK’s overarching morality to its educational establishments (it was Christian schools that educated the poor and the young in the UK well before the State had even the slightest concern for such things). It should also be appreciated that Non-Conformist and the Protestant traditions helped imbue Britain with a sense of religious freedom that is still visible today.

I likewise agree that there are determined efforts to remove Christianity from the public sphere. Although perhaps not all of his examples are accurate – the concern over ‘winter lights’ instead of Christmas lights leads on from repeated tabloid stories about ‘Muslims banning Christmas’. In fact, the stories are so often repeated that they feel part of the annual Christmas run-up. This year was no disappointment, with the Daily Star leading a front page story with the headline ‘Christmas ‘nicked’ by Muslims’. It goes without saying the headlines are somewhat fabricated.

But I do not agree with Lord Carey’s diagnosis of the causes for the removal of Christianity from the public sphere. He writes: -

“So, it appears that flowing from a combination of well-meaning political correctness, multiculturalism and overt opposition to Christianity, a new climate, hostile to our country’s tradition and history, is developing.”

Almost like an elephant in the room, the word ‘secularism’ seems conspicuous in its absence.

I strongly disagree that political correctness (an empty term which few take heed of) is responsible. Nor is multiculturalism to blame. Multiculturalism is widely misunderstood and offers much to this country. A simple definition of multiculturalism is the acceptance of more than one cultural tradition in the public sphere (arguing in favour of pluralism) and a recognition that there exists, alongside the individual, group identities. It is in many ways in antipathy with secularism. It may be out of vogue, but it is invaluable.

Rather, the concern to remove Christianity from the public sphere began during the Enlightenment, and Christianity alone is not the focus, but religion all together. The Age of Reason often put itself squarely in opposition to religion. In France, the values of the Enlightenment came to fruition through laicite, which has generally made slow progress in Britain, and thankfully so.

Secularism, in its extreme form, denies the individual freedom of expression, in the hope to maintain some imagined absence of religion. It is contradictory in that it abuses and infringes upon the individuals rights while claiming to defend them, and likewise removes the very moral tools needed for a free, open, just and merciful society.

I wish Lord Carey and Christian Concern well with their campaign, but if they wish to be truly effective, they should recognise that it is secularism which is infringing upon the right to faith in the public sphere.

And if they wish to successfully contest the ideals of secularism, then partnership with other faiths will be necessary.

PANORAMA: a response

“British Schools: Islamic Rules” ran the title of this week’s Panorama on BBC1. It dealt with what it considered questionable material being taught in British schools.

There are several point of response, or themes of objection, that I have with the documentary. I highlight them in the hope that others will be able to see the questionable ground upon which the Panorama documentary was based.

OTHERING:

Othering is a process by which one identity is secured in opposition, and often in conflict, with another. In this case, it is the clear distinction between British and Islamic.

For many, myself included, there is little conflict between the two. Like millions of Muslims in the UK, I am confident in my British nationality and the Islamic principles and teachings I live my life by – and in fact I find many areas of commonality.

Yet the show with its title (British Schools: Islamic Rules) directly proposed an antithesis between that which is British, and that which is Islamic. This was a theme that reoccurred through out the show.

The presenter criticises some of the schools for teaching anti-Western views (essentially a construction of opposition between Islam and ‘the West’), when the show itself is guilty of doing exactly the same in its title and narrative.

EXTREMISM AND CONSERVATISM:

Religious extremism and religious conservatism are two very distinct notions, and must never be conflated if a mature and informed discussion on religion is to take place.

Yet Panorama is sloppy in distinguishing between the two. An example found in the show is of the religious opinion it cites which disfavours music. Yes, this is a position expounded by many scholars within Islam, though not all, and is well within the mainstream of Islamic religious opinion. Does this lead to extremism, or fundamentalism, or indeed anything of concern? Of course not, and importantly, Islam is not the only faith tradition with varying opinions on the role of music.

Again, this amateurism can be found in discussions of ‘medieval Islam’ and the way that Muslims use the word ‘kuffar’ (it can be used in a derogatory sense, but also in a technical sense, as scholars of jurisprudence are prone to doing).

CLAIMS OF ANTI-SEMITISM:

It is very difficult to examine the material presented in the documentary regarding anti-Semitism. I watched the documentary with a notepad in hand, but all the issues raised were vague, brief and generalised.

Where there is hate and prejudice being taught in Islamic schools, communities must contest this. But as I can’t bring a specific example from the documentary to discuss, I will simply outline what Islam teaches about Judaism, and the equality of humanity in general.

The Prophet Muhammad left no room for doubt about the nature of mankind when he stated in the Farewell Sermon, an important summa theologica of Islam, that: -

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white; except by piety and good action”

Jews, along with Christians and Mandaeans are counted amongst the ‘People of the Book’, and honoured title within the Quran used for the Abrahamic traditions.

The Constitution of Madinah, a social contract drafted and signed by the Prophet Muhammad, states in strong terms that between Muslims and Jews ‘there shall be sincere friendship, exchange of good counsel, fair conduct and no betrayal'.

Islam does not view the ‘Children of Israel’ in history as a differing religious tradition. Rather the story of the Children of Israel is the story of faith amongst humanity in the Quran. And so there are stories of piety and morality, of sin and forgiveness and indeed of sin and condemnation. These are for instruction and reflection of present day believers –Quranic references to Children of Israel should be understood in this context.

GENERALISATION AND SENSATIONALISM:

I refuse to accept the now token disclaimer offered by journalists and presenters who say “not all Muslims are like this, but” and then spend the whole show demonising and misrepresenting Muslims.

Despite almost all the schools mentioned by the documentary receiving ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ classifications by Ofsted (a very rare grade), the show then went on listing tenuous claims of ‘extremism’.

Often this is done by quoting speakers out of context, with some ominous music playing. This is a common technique, and one which wilfully misrepresents the speakers and the content of their message, and as mentioned, conflates extremism and religious conservatism.

If the issue of Muslim faith schools, and the content of their syllabus, is to be examined, it should be done thoroughly, with adequate time and an objective analysis.

This short documentary, with sloppy terminology, lack of understanding, vague accusations, sensationalism and generalisations of a two million strong Muslim community is anything but the right way to do it.