誰能代表伊斯蘭？
1. 穆斯林呼籲政府監視其他穆斯林，即使在缺乏具體證據情況下？
2. 穆斯林「女性主義者」與「前穆斯林」代表伊斯蘭，呼籲改革伊斯蘭？
On Monday evening, Newsnight convened a
panel of Muslims to discuss a short film on the topic of
"who speaks for Muslims", made by Quilliam Foundation's Maajid Nawaz.
The panel included the
journalist Mehdi Hasan and the Muslim commentator Mo Ansar and was chaired,
(although arguably
not much!) by Jeremy Paxman.
The film itself featured a number of voices which
Nawaz argued were marginalised by the Muslim community and served to
illustrate his point, on the backdrop of his tweet of a Jesus and Mo cartoon,
that Muslims need to be more inclusive and attentive to minority voices.
So, what would I have added to the discussion if
I had been present? Probably not much given its shambolic nature, but here
are a few points I was hoping to make:
1) Was
the cartoon Maajid tweeted offensive?
The simple answer is, yes, to
many Muslims it was,
for the simple reason that Islamic art, at least in its Sunni variant,
traditionally prohibits pictorial
representations of prophets. Even among Muslims who do represent prophets, the
images are of the sacred variant - in other words, they are reverential,
respectful. If you don't
want to take my word for it, then just read on:
"Islamic visual arts are decorative, colourful,
and, in the case of religious art, non-representational. The Koran regulated
every detail
of the lives of the Faithful but gave few precise rules for the arts apart from
banning the
production of cult images."
And yes, that's from The Concise Oxford
Dictionary of Art Terms,
that typically 'islamist' source.
Ah, but it wasn't Islamic art now was it, it was
atheist "art"? Well you'd be right to point that
out. The anonymous author of the Jesus and Mo series himself says:
"I think it's important to remind people of
a religious persuasion who might be upset or offended by Jesus
and Mo that it is not for them. They are not the intended audience, so to
complain that
they find it hurtful or offensive is irrelevant. Why are they looking at
it?"
Why indeed! Hold on, they're looking at it
because Maajid - the establishment's go to person on Muslim issues -
tweeted it. When he says "as a Muslim, I did not feel threatened by
it", what he's actually saying is "I, as a 'moderate Muslim', don't
take offence, so neither should
others", thus casting the insidious shadow of 'extremist' doubt over those
who did feel
offence.
Let's be clear - Maajid
is entitled not to adhere to the predominant view among Muslims on the pictorial representation of prophets and
the even more widespread view that intentionally deriding images
of anyone's sacred symbols is offensive, but you can't feign naivety
over people's upset. I mean, that's the actual point of the cartoons - to
ridicule believers.
Maajid's defence is that he wants us all to
become a little thicker skinned, to counter the 'blasphemy' culture and all
that jazz which quite incidentally I'm sure, makes for enticing sound
bites for potential funders. But given prior reactions to the posting of other
religious 'satirical'
cartoons - think Denmark 2005 - global protests - what exactly was the strategy
here?
Light the tinderbox and then reveal you are in possession of an ideological
fire truck? I'm
not sure how effective a tactic that truly is.
Violent reactions (of which on this occasion it
should be pointed out, there were none) are unacceptable, but so surely is
seeking to provoke
them in order to prove a point. Meaningful change is the type of gradualist
work undertaken
by activists on the ground who seek to change mentalities with, not against the
community.
Thankfully the reaction among British
Muslims was meek to say the least. Well, if you consider
over 22,000 signatures opposing Nawaz meek. Perhaps not meek then - maybe more
like, moderate? Surely Maajid should be proud,
Muslims, displeased with the behaviour of a
prospective MP, started a petition (how civilised!) calling for an
investigation by the Lib Dems into his behaviour.
Judging by their response you'd think Britain's most 'obscurantist'
Muslims might not actually be in need of mass surveillance and ideological re-alignment
- they seem to have this democracy business pretty much figured out.
2)
But why should the majority of the British public have to respect the religious
eccentricities of
Muslims?
Well ironically enough, Maajid's report was all
about the importance of tolerance
and respecting the voice of different minorities within the Muslim minority
(gay, ex-muslim,
feminist). Presumably that extends to minorities within a majority as well? Or
it is
only Muslims who should feel compelled to respect minorities in their midst?
No, that doesn't mean censorship, it means
treading lightly around people's sacred symbols.
Are some people still going to be offended? Probably.
Does
that mean we shouldn't show images of the Prophet? No,
it simply means those who use offensive images to further an extremist
anti-religious agenda
should be outed for their deliberate provocation, not heralded as martyrs of
free speech.
The Jesus and Mo series existed long before
Maajid decided to tweet about it. It became an issue because:
a) Maajid describes himself as Muslim so there
was some expectation among Muslims that he would not deliberately
trample all over Muslim sensibilities
b) while Muslims could and did ignore the Jesus
and Mo series while it remained in a 'look if you want, don't if you
don't' corner of the internet, they could no longer ignore it when one
of the most prominent Muslim figures in the UK tweeted it and proclaimed the
rest of us
were loons for being upset by it. Cheers Maajid.
c) finally, although Maajid likes to reiterate
the fact the particular cartoon he tweeted is fairly innocuous (and as far
as religious satire goes, it is!), it is not a stand alone image. It is a part of a series
intentionally created to mock, demean and belittle the faith of Christians and Muslims. Surprisingly - or not perhaps, many faithful
interpret the images as they were intended. Don't take my word for it, here's
the author of Jesus and Mo: "I have to admit that the potential offense
of an imagined religious reader also adds an element of humor
- of a childish, sniggering variety."
And while I'm here, there
is something quite sinister about depicting
Prophet Mohamed with a hooked nose and a uni brow - playing on Arab racial stereotypes? How hilarious.
3) Is
this really all about cartoons? Actually no! The ever perceptive author of the
Jesus and Mo cartoons
himself responded on this issue by saying:
"It shows that the whole business is not about the comic, but
rather a personal attack on Maajid Nawaz".
A personal attack on Maajid? That sounds terrible. Why
would people want to personally attack Maajid. Well, despite
his gleaming reputation as the bulwark against the hoard of barbarians
(or the modern variant, the "islamists"), many
within the Muslim community regard the
Quilliam Foundation (QF) and Maajid in particular with some suspicion.
For one thing, an oft-repeated critique is that
he has retained the Manichean outlook developed during his time in the
radical group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Maajid has a nasty little habit of smearing his critiques
as 'islamists' and suggesting all those who object to the QF's undertakings are
closet Al Qaida
groupies. Needless to say this has irked quite a few people. Not least those
individuals his organisation
flagged up as allegedly sharing the ideology of terrorists in a secret memo to
the Home
Office. The list included the terrifying anti-war campaigner Salma Yaqoob.
And that's not all people are angered about. QF has
consistently advised the government in a manner which has increased
surveillance and suspicion of Muslims despite very little evidence to suggest their 'conveyor belt' theory is actually in any way
credible. According to the author and Guardian
journalist Dr Nafeez Ahmed:
"Government advisers, counter-extremism
officials, and (current
and former) civil servants confirm that the UK government's counter-terrorism
strategy is failing
to tackle the danger of violent extremism; rather, it
is exacerbating the threat of domestic terrorism. These officials attribute the failure to a
"fundamentally flawed" approach to counter-terrorism
strategy inspired by a UK anti-extremism think tank, the Quilliam
Foundation."
On the contrary, there
is evidence to suggest QF's work is not merely flawed but negatively impacting our ability to actually tackle terrorism.
To realise just how flawed, take the example of
STREET, a south London organisation engaging alienated young Muslims which
was listed as 'extremist' by the QF in 2010. One counter radicalization
expert has said
that if STREET had been operational today "the Woolwich incident could
have been averted."
A recent Demos report shows that
although many Muslims share similar concerns over the plight of occupied or war-stricken peoples, they do not condone the
tactics used by terrorists. Placing such individuals on the same
risk list as those who believe in the use of violence is frankly a gross mischaracterisation
of people's outlook and a huge waste of government time and energy on individuals
who do not actually pose a threat. But don't take my word for it. One former
senior OSCT
director responsible for Prevent has gone on record saying.
"I and other counter-terrorism experts were telling the
coalition cabinet that non-violent extremism is not a
factor in the real threat."
People's antagonism towards Maajid isn't actually
about him being the alleged beacon of liberal tolerance, in an ocean of
hate-filled bigotry, as he and his minions like to claim. Muslims don't dislike
Maajid because he supports gay rights or free speech. They
might disagree with him on issues, but the
visceral reaction he engenders has little to do with his personal outlook and everything to do with his think tank's extremely poor engagement
with the community it ought to be supporting in eradicating
violent elements which, Gallup polls indicate, worry Muslims even
more
than they worry the broader public.
And the list of grievances wouldn't be complete
if I failed to mention Maajid's new BFF, Tommy (not really ex-EDL) Robinson
- having tried his hand at reforming Islamic extremists, Maajid extended his
skills to the far-right, establishing a working relationship with the most
extreme face of islamophobic rhetoric in the UK.
Having smugly announced that Tommy was reformed (wow, that
was quick!), Tommy almost immediately slipped back into his old habits, joining
the murky network
of islamophobes the "SION Presidents Council" (that's the catchy
"Stop Islamization of Nations" to you and me) alongside the
anti-Muslim propagandists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller
who just this summer, the home secretary had banned from entering the UK.
If this wasn't enough to ruffle a few feathers,
in Monday's film, his linking of Muslim feminists to ex-Muslims
as different examples of "progressive" voices within the community
has done a huge disservice
to Muslim feminists who struggle as it is to be recognised as speaking from within.
Now we're
being put in the same boat as those who campaign against the faith! How helpful
is that to our
efforts at working for gender equality within our community.
In the film, Namazie from the Council of
ex-Muslims, claimed that emphasising Islam as one's main or
only identity was "part and parcel of the effort to hand them over to the
islamists" which sounds like a conspiracy if I ever heard one. And why
would it be problematic for people to define themselves first and foremost
as "Muslim"? A poll of Muslim Londoners by Gallup found that while most
(69%) strongly identified with their faith, a majority (57%) also strongly
identified with their country
and that Muslim Londoners are just as likely as the British public overall to
condemn terrorist
attacks on civilians. Why are islamophobes like Namazie being given a platform
to espouse erroneous
and stigmatising nonsense under the guise of, according to Maajid's
introduction, giving a
voice to an "increasing number of Muslims using their faith identity to
advance a progressive agenda."
What is progressive exactly about stigmatising those who identify first and
foremost with their
religious identity as somehow 'extreme'? By that token surely the Pope, Dalai
Lama and Chief Rabbi
are all 'extremists'!
Are there issues of intolerance within the Muslim
community? Certainly there are. Do I think the Council of ex-Muslims are part of the solution. I should hope it is
fairly obvious that they can't be. Unless
your proposed solution, which presumably is theirs, is a mass exodus from the
faith.
Far more insulting than any tweet is the
inclusion of the ex-council of Muslims as part of a package on
progressive Muslims.
The Muslim community is far from perfect, but our
misrepresentation as squabbling
men who need reforming through those who have themselves rejected the faith is palpably
absurd. Who speaks for Muslims? How about the myriad Muslims doing the hard
graft on the
ground.
沒有留言:
張貼留言