In the light of the Casey Review and a new government green paper on integration can one have a debate about social integration of Muslims in the UK without accusations of Islamophobia?
Miqdaad Versi (assistant secretary general of The Muslim Council of Britain) in The Guardian asserts "The government needs to rethink its approach if there is to be any hope of a successful strategy for Muslim communities."
Versi is responding mostly to Louise Casey's recent assertion that the government have not implemented any of her suggestions in her review of social integration in Britain. He also criticizes Casey's focus being primarily on Muslim communities.
This tends to be a divisive debate that often leads to confused claims of racism, Islamophobia and a fear by some of a back door blasphemy law. So, great, here I wade in...eeek.
The problem with the debate around Islam and Muslim integration in the UK (or indeed in western Europe) is the conflation of race, culture and religion. Versi is as guilty as everyone else in this in his article:
"More than 10 years ago, David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, declared that integration was “a two-way street”...He affirmed that we could aspire to be a more united country if we recognised our diversity.
Within the space of a decade, that attitude dissipated. It reflected the success of a core group of ideologues keen to unleash a phoney culture war that scapegoated Muslims and cast doubt on this country’s diversity. Once in office, Cameron declared that multiculturalism allowed people to lead separate lives, and therefore led to extremism." my italics
Versi doesn't elaborate on who this core group of ideologues are and what their purpose is in scapegoating Muslims. It sounds an awful lot like a paranoid conspiracy theory.
The irony in Versi's claim is that Cameron's government oversaw the largest growth in Faith Schools in the UK.
The number of faith schools continues to increase:
"At the start of January 2017 there were 6,813 state funded faith schools in England. The majority were primary schools; 6,176 or 37% of all state funded primaries. The 637 secondary faith schools made up 19% of all state funded mainstream secondaries. The proportion of state funded faith schools has increased gradually over time from 35% of primaries and 16% of secondaries in January 2000." (from Faith Schools in England: FAQs, House of Commons Briefing Paper, March 2017)
I'm under the assumption here that faith schools are poor vehicles for social integration. Further, I'm making an assumption that the majority of pupils in Church of England and Catholic schools do not have the same difficulties with integration as their peers in Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Sikh schools by virtue of having a longer 'heritage' in British culture, the whole Christianity/the West thing (and probably being white). Thus, I'm making an assumption that, as Muslims make up the largest non-Christian denomination group, that faith schools have the largest impact on integration for Muslim students. Further, the growth of Muslim faith schools far outweighs other faith schools:
"The number of state funded faith schools in England broken down by level and religion is given in the table at the end of this section. Church of England schools were the most common type among primary schools (26% of all primaries); Roman Catholic schools the most numerous type of faith school at secondary level (9%). Non-Christian schools were very much in the minority; there were 48 Jewish, 27 Muslim, 11 Sikh and 5 Hindu schools at the start of January 2017. While the number of
Christian schools has fallen slightly since 2007 the number of non Christian schools has increased. Between January 2007 and September 2017 the number of Jewish schools increased by 11, Muslim schools by 20, Sikh schools by 9 and all the Hindu schools have opened since 2008." my italics
In short, there are far more Christian faith schools but their number has decreased, whilst the number of 'other' faith schools has greatly increased, Muslim faith schools increasing the most (from 0 in 2000 to 27 in 2017).
Though, again, it's important to note that those attending faith schools are a tiny minority (just under 10,000 in a Muslim population of 2.6 million) though again, Casey highlights geographical social isolation, specifically for the Muslim population, and there is still an underlying trend for particular areas in cities to be 'Muslim areas,' just as in the past there were Italian or Chinese areas (though there is already a conflation of race, ethnicity, culture there) and, as schools now define their selection primarily by 'catchment area' the suggestion is that many schools either have a high white Christian or secular intake or in areas with a large Muslim population, a high Asian Muslim intake, thus faith schools by proxy.
Furthermore, religious schools often segregate by gender, further isolating individuals socially. This is particularly problematic with patriarchal fundamentalist religious groups.
The call for integration beside the rise in faith schools seems utterly paradoxical.
Versi spends much of his time 'outing' stories in the media as having an Islamic bias. The BBC ran a piece on him The man correcting stories about Muslims. On faith schools, for instance, Versi complained on Twitter about a piece in The Independent which carried this picture in their story...
...and a BBC piece reporting the same findings: Thousands of children taught in 'illegal schools'. Versi argues disingenuously (he does this a lot as we'll see) that the"Vast majority of faith schools are Christian yet the @Independent chooses to have a picture of a Muslim faith school..."
Then notes "The BBC changed its picture on its faith schools story from Muslim-focussed [sic] to more generic..."
If that's the level of Versi's story correcting skills it's rather worrying. Yes, the vast majority of faith schools are Christian but that has no bearing on the story which was about an Ofsted inspection of illegal schools:
"Sir Michael Wilshaw said a crackdown had found more than 100 suspected illegal schools - half of which were faith-based, Ofsted said.
Roughly a third of them were Islamic and a sixth either Christian or Jewish."
As the worst culprits in this story were indeed Muslim faith schools isn't it reasonable to show a picture of a Muslim faith school?
The Independent piece gives examples from a fundamentalist Christian, Jewish and Islamic school and shows the negative impact of any religious practice in school and the divisive nature of faith schooling from more than one side of the divide:
"One student recognised that his Church of England primary was “excellent” in many ways, and that he broadly remembers “being very happy there”, however he recalled the treatment of “one boy from a Muslim family” in his year: ”Being a faith school, we had religious assemblies, and being from a Muslim family, Ali was not allowed to attend them. He sat in a room adjoining the hall during these gatherings. I have a very clear memory of seeing him peering through the glass into the hall, trying to see if assembly was over. Could there be any clearer image to reinforce the notion that Ali was not fully ‘one of us’?”"
In The BBC piece: "In a letter to Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, Sir Michael said his team of seven experienced inspectors, working closely with DfE officials, had identified more than 100 suspected unregistered schools across the country since January.
"The evidence they have gathered so far during this short period firmly reinforces my belief that there are many more children hidden away from the view of the authorities in unregistered schools across the country than previously thought," he said."
It's precisely the practice of outing Islamophobic media prejudices which makes the reporting of such sensitive issues so problematic, leading to right wing groups believing in crazed conspiracy cover ups.
Both news pieces focused on homophobic teaching in faith schools. We know from survey reporting British social attitudes that:
"Not surprisingly, religious belief is closely linked to attitudes to homosexuality. Those who aren't religious are the least likely to see it as always or mostly wrong, only 16 per cent do so. This compares to disapproval rates of over a third among Anglicans (40 per cent) and Catholics (35 per cent). The highest disapproval of all is found among non-Christians, six in ten (61 per cent) of whom see homosexuality as always or mostly wrong (although these figures need to be treated with caution due to the small sample sizes involved)."
Further, an ICM poll for Channel 4 News found Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal.
"Extensive polling conducted by ICM suggests that in most cases attitudes held by the British Muslim population do not broadly differ from those held by the population at large, but there are significant differences when it comes to some issues such as homosexuality and women’s rights.
Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the findings were “extremely worrying” as they suggested on many issues Muslims were “nation within a nation”."
Obviously one poll doesn't tell us the whole picture on integration vis a vis Muslims in Britain. But what is interesting in a Guardian article asking young Muslims to respond to the Channel 4 poll many of the same arguments are trotted out, not all Muslims are the same you know and conflation of race/ethnicity and/or nationality with religion:
What British Muslims really think about Channel 4's show.
Nazia suggests "Muslims aren’t one block of consciousness; Pakistani Muslims often have differing views to Arab Muslims, African Muslims often have differing views to Malaysian Muslims and so on. What kind of Muslims did the sample consist of? Sunni, Shia? Hanafi, Hanbali? Deobandi or Barelwi? To use only 1081 Muslims as a sample to represent 3 million Muslims is inflammatory, misleading and dangerous."
Unfortunately that's how all polls work. Small samples extrapolated to wider population. And as to general demographics; see Brexit. I didn't vote for it. But 52% of people I probably have no relation to other than the umbrella notion of nationality, British, did.
Muslims are all unique? That makes no sense. They may have different cultural or geographical backgrounds but surely the core beliefs are based on Koranic teaching, no? All the different sects within Islam all sing from the same hymn sheet, as it were, just as the myriad sects of Christianity conform to biblical teaching (well, all except the Church of England which is like Christianity's laisser faire cousin on stuff like women or homosexuality), that's the point of any religion. All these different cultural, geographically dislocated groups all come together as Muslim. It's a bizarre argument I've often seen reported. But we're all different! But surely not. I mean, Sunni and Shia are pretty much urban and rural sects that differ over history and who was the rightful heir to a middle Eastern kingdom but both believe in the same teachings from the same book, the same god, the same prophet. Happy to be corrected.
And Nazia pulls out the, ok some who share my religious belief are crazy but I'm not argument:
" It was claimed that Muslims are homophobic, misogynistic and that they wish to impose ‘sharia law’. I’m not denying that these elements exist but more emphasis should have been made on the possible cultural background to these views; many rural communities in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh do have a culture of accepting polygamy and not accepting non-heterosexual relationships."
Which is an odd argument. The Muslims who are homophobic misogynists are so because they come from countries that are far more Islamic. Huh?
Ibrahim argues we shouldn't conflate race and religion by conflating race and religion:
"Many British Muslims hold traditional values that others of other faiths may hold such as disagreeing with same-sex marriage. Yet overwhelming evidence points to the fact that we are a patriotic community and have a strong affiliation and sense of belonging to this great nation. Moreover, Trevor Philips and the show portrayed segregated schools as an Islamic problem, that somehow where a school finds itself admitting children of a certain colour, that it is a religious issue. I would argue that this is a cultural and geographical issue and conflating religion with state school segregation is ridiculous."
Many of the Muslim faith are homophobic but we're proudly British. Uh, I think that might be conflating faith and nationality. Islamic segregated schools are particularly problematic for the very reasons of race and culture which are probably not (such) a problem in Christian segregated schools and they certainly do not help with integration.
This dichotomy of British and Muslim comes up again and again throughout the points. Take Ismael, for instance:
"The questions were vague including the question on whether homosexuality should be banned. Traditional Islam bans it so many Muslim respondents would have responded based their answer on that, not from the viewpoint of UK being a secular state."
So, one might have based one's answer on the teachings of one's faith rather than answering as someone who lives in a western secular state. Isn't that the fundamental (no pun) problem with any religion whose teachings conflict with a modern secular state? This is generally not problematic when it comes to Christianity as it's shown itself to be ridiculously adaptable. This might yet happen with younger Muslims growing up in western countries where the values of their faith do not gel with the values of their society.
Just anecdotally, I taught in a college for ten years and it had a mixed intake and there was a dispiriting divide in the subjects taken by Muslim students and non-Muslim students (I had to teach English to various vocational classes, I.T. was roughly a 90% Asian Muslim intake) with very few Muslim students in humanity courses. There was also a gender divide as I taught hundreds of Asian Muslim students but I can't remember one single female Muslim student in all the courses I taught (vocational English to Hair and Beauty (great fun), I.T., Sports, Construction, Child Care) A-Level Eng Lit, Communication Studies, Media and Film. There was a local college for Muslim women aged 16-19 and I, as a male of sexually virile years, was not allowed to teach there (that's what I was told, well not the sexually virile bit but that male teachers were not allowed).
Having said all that I never witnessed any Islamophobia or racism. Plenty of casual sexism and homophobia unfortunately, from young men from all cultural backgrounds. Patriarchal homophobic perceptions are certainly not limited to Muslims.
Back to Versi who suggests:
"Just before he [Cameron] left office, the former prime minister charged Dame Louise Casey with investigating the state of integration in our country. For those looking to attack Muslims and “failed multiculturalism”, she did not fail to deliver. Casey put a “moral onus on ethnic minorities for the supposed failures of integration”, proclaimed integration was “not a two-way street” and publicly used her platform to wrongly conflate criminal acts with sharia law. This all builds up a dangerous narrative in the public mind." my italics
Versi disingenuously suggests Casey put a special effort into attacking Muslims, which is just nonsense. The Casey review was about integration and the greatest problems with integration were not with Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish or any other faiths and it focused particularly on Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants as they have the 'double bind' of integrating in that they are both Asian and Muslim. They are also the fastest growing immigrant groups (excepting Eastern European migrants). She also highlights that the cultural practices of said groups conflict the most with what she rather unpleasantly calls "British values." She also does not "put a moral onus on ethnic minorities for the supposed failures of integration,” this is in fact the suggestion from an article in Prospect Magazine by Oliver Kamm.
Kamm tells us that the Casey review is "the type of document that would appeal to a politician who blames traffic jams on immigrants and expresses discomfort when hearing foreign languages on public transport. It warns that segregation and social exclusion are at “worrying” levels, and it does so—extraordinarily—without indicating what it would accept as countervailing evidence."
I've read the review (available as a pdf here) and I don't recognize Kamm's interpretation. It does indeed single out Muslim integration as the most highly problematic and does so on factors including language acquisition (which is discussed further below), terrorism/extremism, women's inequality, intolerance of different sexuality, and "regressive attitudes" by which she quotes the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan:
“When I was younger you didn’t see people wearing hijabs and niqabs, not even in Pakistan when I visited my family. In London we got on. People dressed the same. What you see now are people born and raised here who are choosing to wear the jilbab or niqab. There is a question to be asked about what is going on in those homes. What’s insidious is if people are starting to think it is appropriate to treat women differently or that it has been forced on them. What worries me is children being forced to adopt a lifestyle. It’s not for me to tell women what to wear. But I do think that in public service we should be able to see each other’s faces. Eye contact matters. You should be able to see the face. There is no other city in the world where I would want to raise my daughters than London.
They have rights, they have protection, the right to wear what they like, think what they like, to meet who they like, to study what they like, more than they would in any other country.”
To deny these are issues almost completely unique (openly that is) to Muslim culture in the UK is to be a bit deluded but, as Casey has found, to raise these questions is to be branded racist or Islamophobic. There was a similar response to her review of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal in 2015 ( pdf here), in which she found a general fear in the council and the police of appearing racist or Islamophobic in highlighting that the perpetrators were Muslims of Pakistani heritage (same in Oxford, Rochdale, Oldham, etc.). If one suggests there is a direct link between a deeply conservative patriarchal culture and sexual exploitation (even though this seems perfectly obvious) one can be branded Islamophobic or racist. And arguments against this position often simply conflate many cultural issues. Take Alan Travis in The Guardian responding to the Casey review:
"The pace of immigration itself appears to have overtaken Dame Louise Casey’s flawed report into the state of social integration in Britain, with the result that her aggressive action plan, with its calls for British loyalty oaths for new migrants, is likely to prove counterproductive.
Casey’s experience of her inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham has rightly led her to a strong understanding of the problems that misogyny and the oppression of women and girls can cause when they are allowed to dominate in small, separate, closed communities.
But her justified desire to ensure such scandals are not left to fester in dark corners of our society has led her to overlook the rapidly changing nature of Britain’s migrant communities. Such scandals are not the sole preserve of one British Pakistani community or indeed any particular community, as the domestic violence records of Britain’s police forces can clearly testify."
No one argues that child sexual exploitation is not an issue across cultures, class, race, etc. (it's a patriarchal power issue not racial or religious, though religion by virtue of being patriarchal and dominated by power dynamics is particularly problematic). Travis here, in trying to suggest that CSE and patriarchal Pakistani Muslim cultural beliefs have no link conflates child sexual exploitation with domestic violence (two separate issues). It simply is not racist or Islamophobic to suggest someone who practices a deeply patriarchal religion (as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are) in a fundamentalist way often hold attitudes about women that are positively pre-medieval.
Travis suggests: "But it is odd that her inquiry focuses almost totally on Britain’s Muslim communities, largely from Pakistan, and who mostly came to the UK more than 20 years ago. She has far less to say about the new Polish, Romanian or eastern European communities who have made up the bulk of Britain’s immigrants over the past 15 years. She mentions Muslims 249 times in her report, but there are only 14 references to Polish communities."
Versi, in his Guardian piece makes the same fallacious argument:
"Consider, for instance, the laudable objective of reducing the number of people who cannot speak English, and therefore struggle to participate in society. This week, Casey took to the airwaves with the eye-catching ultimatum that the government should set a deadline for everyone to speak English. Rather than examine the issue as it affects all sections of British society, last year she suggested that this was a problem in Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities, failing to acknowledge that the greatest number of those unable to speak English well, are “other white”."
The "other white" are predominantly Polish and other EU nationals. The problem with counting EU nationals in the number of non-native speakers is that being EU migrant workers there is free movement and no guarantee that these numbers will be constant, especially with Brexit coming. It's disingenuous to compare Polish nationals in the UK with Pakistani nationals, for instance, because of EU free movement. If indeed the near 1 million Poles in the UK were to stay after Brexit then the same language issues would indeed apply. Though, importantly, EU nationals such as Polish immigrants tend to not have the same cultural differences (being white, western European secular immigrants) as fundamentalist Muslims. To put it another way, there is no other complication to integration of EU nationals other than language, which is not the same for Asian Muslims (where race and ethnicity and culture and religion are all integration factors).
Versi then highlights the other common fallacious argument in the debate:
"Perhaps it would be good to recognise why people choose to live near someone familiar to them, as expat Brits do in Spain, and why others may opt to live in segregated communities for complex reasons, such as housing policy or “white flight”, rather than focusing primarily on immigrant communities. Policies based on such an approach would acknowledge that segregation among Muslims has actually been falling, and that a large and growing proportion (89% in 2015-16) thought their local area was “a place where people from different backgrounds get on well”." italics highlight links in the article.
The old Brits in Spain example is disingenuous as those British have no long term stake in that country, they are effectively tourists. While the idea of Brits in Spain still living as Brits might be depressing (it is) it bares no similarity to actual immigration.
Travis also uses the same tired conflated argument in his piece:
"The 2011 census showed that not speaking any English was a problem that affected only 138,000 migrants, fewer than 0.3% of the population. Many of those who spoke no English at all were an older generation who had come as grandparents to join their families. Some have been in Britain for decades without learning English – not unlike the retired Brits on the Spanish Costas."
Housing is certainly a factor in segregation and non-integration. Poor immigrants will be housed or live in the most deprived areas, and there is a link between deprivation and lack of social integration.
All segregation by locality in the report by the University of Manchester (which Versi cites) shows a slight decrease in "separation" but the report highlights that this is only based on housing and "The Census does not say much about mixing at work or in school, which are important aspects of socialising." The report also highlights that African and Caribbean saw the greatest decrease in segregation and in religious groups, Hindus and Buddhists saw the greatest decrease. For Versi's point about "complex reasons" for integration he sources a 2005 report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation whose main remit is highlighting disparities in social class and poverty, so unsurprisingly that report focuses on deprivation. It's also 13 years old.
The 89% figure is from a government community life survey carried out face to face with 3000 people here and has nothing to say on race, ethnicity or religion so I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion.
In Oliver Kamm's piece in Prospect you once again see the bizarre lopsided thinking in the discussion:
"I state my reservations about the Casey review and about the competence of Casey herself as dispassionately as I can but one message from her review is especially insidious. She criticises public institutions that “have ignored or even condoned regressive, divisive and harmful cultural and religious practices, for fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic.” She rightly refers to the Rotherham child abuse scandal as “a catastrophic example of authorities turning a blind eye to harm in order to avoid the need to confront a particular community.”
As it happens, it was my newspaper and my colleague Andrew Norfolk who exposed the horrific sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham. And the scandal is bigger still than Casey allows for. Jayne Senior, the youth worker who approached The Times to expose the abuse, identifies an institutional failing with the police, who “did nothing and Senior believes underlying their inertia was disgust for the girls. They were ‘dirty little slags, the worst type since they’d ‘even go with Pakis’ and had brought it on themselves” (profile of “The Rotherham Whistleblower,” Times magazine, 19th March 2016)."
As a reasoned discussion this makes no sense. It's insidious of Casey to suggest that public instititutions ignore regressive practices for fear of being branded racist and highlights Rotherham council. He then highlights that Prospect exposed the child sexual exploitation there and that it runs deep within the public institutions there. Huh? So how is Casey's assertions insidious? He seems to agree with her. It's very peculiar logic.
Kamm's piece is full of this bizarre stuff:
"The Casey review manages to be simultaneously turbid and shallow. It consistently confuses the issues of segregation and susceptibility to extremism."
Uh, so what does lead to susceptibility to extremism then? Who knows? Kamm never tells us.
"The most culpable aspect of the Casey review is that it lacks rigour and continually appeals to “feelings” rather than facts."
Then Kamm, with no irony, adds:
"You get the feeling—or at least I do—from Casey’s report that she is seeking an off-the-shelf example of purported political correctness without fully grasping the scale and scandal of what she’s dealing with. But it serves to place the moral onus on ethnic minorities for supposed failures of integration. That’s a shabby thing to do, in a document that bears more resemblance to a long and unsubstantiated opinion column than a serious review of the state of Britain."
How perplexing.
I think (or feel?) that Casey highlights the lack of government initiatives, hence why she argued in The Guardian a couple of months back "ministers have done absolutely nothing about cohesion."
She does also put an onus on Muslim groups and religious leaders as well as British Muslims by highlighting that they alone have these problems integrating in UK society (i.e. the same problems are not present in Sikh or Hindu communities and it's not about race because there aren't the same problems with non-Muslim African or Afro-Caribbean communities).
Versi argues "It is therefore a relief that the government’s green paper on integration appears to have understood why the Casey Review was the wrong approach. Yes, there are some factual errors, a lack of sufficient funding for the work, a prioritisation that does not align to the need in our society – according to the equalities thinktank the Runnymede Trust – and a disproportionate focus on Pakistani and Bangladeshi, as well as Muslim, communities. But the tone was far more consultative and positive." italics refers to source references.
The source references are, unfortunately, all to Omar Khan on twitter (advice to the wise, don't use twitter as a reference source): Omar Khan suggests, for instance, on "factual errors":
"According to 2011 Census and govt website published this month, 59% of ppl who don't speak English are women. Yet today we're hearing government claim it's 'up to 70%' or '60-70%'. There is of course a gender equality issue, but making up numbers isn't going to tackle sexism."
The 70% claim was from a piece by Sajid Khan about the green paper of 2018 (7 years after the 2011 census) which suggests the problem is actually getting worse, seven years on:
“We estimate that there [are] 770,000 people that live in [England] that speak hardly any or no English. That figure will be in the report. And most of those people – we estimate 60 to 70% – are women. And most of those women, in turn, are of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin.”
The problem with relying on census data is highlighted by the Office of National Statistics istelf:
"The Office for National Statistics itself questioned the value of a census that takes place only every ten years of a population that is increasingly mobile: “This can be a significant issue in areas experiencing rapid population change, or when the importance of a particular socio-demographic topic suddenly changes in response to new or emerging Government policies and priorities.”
The last census was 7 years ago. I couldn't actually find data on non-English speakers/women from the 2001 census as comparison (it might not even have been data).
As to Versi's suggestion that "It is therefore a relief that the government’s green paper on integration appears to have understood why the Casey Review was the wrong approach" I'm a little perplexed as the Green Paper mostly reinforces Casey's arguments.
On language matters the paper reinforces a notion that there is a problem in Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim communities (especially amongst women):
"By ethnicity, Pakistani (18.9%) and Bangladeshi (21.9%) groups have the highest proportions of people aged 16 or over with poor English language proficiency. By faith community, the Muslim population has the highest proportion of people aged 16 and over who cannot speak English well or at all (16%). Across the population as a whole, more women than men report not speaking English well or at all (2.1% compared with 1.5% for men)."
It's important to remember that the government Green Paper is a report on what the government intends to do to help alleviate segregation whereas the Casey review was highlighting why segregation occurs. But still the Green Paper argues that a key problem is the perpetual "first generation" integration problem seemingly unique to Muslim communities:
"The Casey Review refers to a study by Bristol University,which found that half of British Pakistanis married in Pakistan, and that most of these marriages were between cousins or other members of extended kin groups. First cousin marriages are detrimental where they restrict individuals’ right to choose, as well as potentially having harmful health consequences for children born to such marriages.
The Casey Review highlighted the double discrimination faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people who are also from ethnic minority and faith backgrounds. It is troubling that the LGBT homelessness charity, the Albert Kennedy Trust, found in 2016/17 that 59% of its
service users were people from non-White British backgrounds and 25% of service users declared having a faith/ religious background.
Influences from overseas
The links many immigrant communities have to their countries of origin can present challenges to
integration where social or cultural norms overseas differ from British values and influence the way people behave here. This may be the case where, for example, marriage expectations reduce freedom of choice or perpetuate a ‘first generation in every generation’ effect; and continued consumption of media or other messaging incompatible with British values has an adverse effect on individuals’ understanding of and response to the society in which they live."
This is all from the Casey Review and reinforced in the green paper.
Versi argues: "The prime minister, for example, celebrates our diversity as a nation in the foreword to the green paper, and explicitly recognises faith as an enabler for good; the report proposes policies to tackle real barriers to integration of minority communities, such as poverty and social mobility, labour market inequalities and political participation. There are discussions on the importance of tackling discrimination and hate crime."
Well, she would wouldn't she, as would anyone forewording a green paper on diversity and integration. She would also recognize faith as an enabler of good, as she professes to being a Christian (ha! has she not read the Gospel of Matthew? oh blessed meek).
"The report proposes policies to tackle real barriers to integration," as opposed to those imaginary cultural barriers?
All hate crimes are wrong. There, god, I feel I have to state this. Even though it's obvious. I'm a vegan atheist, I think no one should be horrid to anyone (including ickle animals).
One of the key problems with the Casey review is the notion of promoting "British Values."
I like Kieran Yates' British Values Zine.
But I'm guessing that's not what is meant by British Values when it's spouted by politicians. In schools it seems to often be represented by a religious handprint. I'm Atheist British, what's this got to do with me?
According to Ofsted, the school's inspectorate, these values are:
Which are a bit weird. But democracy is. I mean, I believe, too, that it's a basic right to believe whatever one wishes, and that's important with religious belief. I absolutely agree with one's right to practice Christianity or Islam or Judaism and that's a basic pre-requisite of a democracy. But in conflict with that is the right to criticize that belief. It's thus problematic to believe in the right of anyone to practice a monotheistic religion yet also believe that said monotheistic religion is intolerant.
An interesting example of this conflict is the publishing of cartoons about Jesus and Mohammed. Most came to the defence of Charlie Hebdo after the Paris attack but if there had been no attack would the publishing of the cartoons have been criticized (as they were in Denmark) as Islamophobic? A piece by Borja Bergareche in Medium looked back at the Danish cartoon 'scandal:
"Instead of portraying the cartoon saga as the latest chapter on Huntington´s “clash of civilizations,” it is more revealing to see the caricatures as a mirror that reflected, among other things, very disturbing underlying dynamics both in continental Europe and in the US/UK. Is the Anglo-Saxon multicultural model paying the price of tolerance, silenced and bowing to the intimidation of Islamist radicals? Will Europe´s hypocritical defense of the right to make fun of (the Muslim) god and its inability to adapt itself to the presence of European Muslim communities make it an involuntary ally of Muslim fanatics?"
The cartoons themselves weren't especially offensive as far as I could see. However, the reason for publishing them is another matter. Bergareche rightly points out that the squeamishness of UK newspapers (none published any of the cartoons when discussing them) felt wrong, how can you discuss something in absentia? Wouldn't it have been healthier to discuss said cartoons and have examples of them to show the readership what exactly they were talking about (one had to go online to see them). As it turned out they broke the comedy law by not being funny in any way. The Times in the UK ran with an editorial explaining why they didn't publish the cartoons:
"“To duplicate these cartoons several months after they were originally printed also has an element of exhibitionism to it. To present them in front of the public for debate is not a value-neutral exercise (…) On balance, we have chosen not to publish the cartoons but to provide weblinks to those who wish to see them. The crucial theme here is choice. The truth is that drawing the line in instances such as these is not a black-and-white question (…) The Times would, for example, have reservations about printing a cartoon of Christ in a Nazi uniform sketched because sympathizers of Hitler had conducted awful crimes in the name of Christianity.”"
Except, as ever the analogy makes no sense because there isn't an equivalent blasphemy in western secular countries. The cartoon that really seemed to cause the most offence was a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his headgear. Obviously, the non-too subtle satirical intent being about Muslims as terrorists. Now, while the intent might have been Islamophobic the cartoon intents seem to be reasonable. Most terrorism in the world now is carried out by Muslims in the name of the prophet M. So an analogy of Jesus as a Nazi makes no sense as that has no bearing on reality. I have no idea of who these sympathizers of Hitler carrying out terrible crimes in the name of Christianity are. Who knows? Methinks the editor's made that one up to justify their position. The point is that the original publication by a right wing Danish newspaper probably had the intention of promoting hostility to Muslims. But UK newspapers reproducing them in a discussion of the issues would not. It's about context. Thus, tolerance of religious belief is a core value of all western secular societies but then also a core value is being able to critique, criticize or indeed, laugh at those beliefs. It's important to remember that any religious belief is irrational. Believing in supernatural things with no evidence is bizarre. There's only one difference between belief in crystal healing, fairies, ghosts, psychic abilities and a belief in god, the cultural aspect of religious belief. But that is certainly not something that should be encouraged (as in faith schools).
Thus, any rational person would agree that racism is not tolerated in a decent society. Intolerance of religion or religious belief is also not on the radar. But intolerance and critique or satire are two different things.
Versi continues:
"With news of Britain First’s Facebook page being banned, we should recognise that these are challenges across all parts of society, and give due regard to the intolerance of Muslims among a large section of our society. Yet too often, people ignore the challenges faced by the “white British” population in favour of a conception of a “top-down, mono-nationalist and establishment ‘British values’ approach”, which assumes it is only the non-white “other” people who must be civilised.""
This is a really problematic argument. "Intolerance of Muslims among a large section of society"? I just don't recognize that. Anecdotally, I live in a town with a 12% Muslim population at the last census but I've never, in the 20 years I've lived here, in a predominantly Asian Muslim area, heard anyone using language that could be construed as Islamophobic. I hear deeply unpleasant misogynistic and homophobic comments continually though. Versi offers no data on this. Many of the surveys on non-Muslim British attitudes to Islam and Muslims are skewed by asking questions like:
"The majority of Britons questioned in a survey believe Islam is not compatible with British values.
The poll also found almost a third of those asked believe Islam is a violent religion and promotes acts of violence in the UK." BBC
But Islam isn't compatible with western democratic values. Nor is Christianity or Judaism. That's just a fact isn't it? You know, the whole if you don't believe in this religion you're going to hell thing, the women thing, the homosexual thing, the ritual slaughter thing (in Islam/Judaism), etc. etc.
And they're all horribly violent religions. And in the hands of fundamentalists they became a reason to kill people in horrible ways. Again, these are surely just actual facts. I mean, I don't have to quote some of the edifying passages do I?
"The Hadith do unequivocally condemn male homosexual acts. The Qur’an (4:16) demands unspecified punishment for men guilty of lewdness together unless they repent.
Yet, the Prophet is supposed to have declared that both the active and the passive partner should be subject to the same penalty as for zina (illicit heterosexual sex, usually adultery), namely execution by stoning.
Abu Dawud’s authoritative hadith collection records a report from Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done (38:4447)." Pink News
As to women: the website religionofpeace gets a lot of calls of Islamophobic but it seems perfectly reasonable to criticize a religion using quotes from the religious text.
Of course, this is assuming that any Muslim practices Islamic teaching.
"TheReligionofPeace.com strongly condemns any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world over their religion. Every person is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds.
We generally support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, women, consenting adults, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others."
Which I agree with. Islam is bad, Muslims are individuals like you or me. It's not tough to understand that, is it? The point is highlighted in the BBC article:
"Farhad Ahmad, 24, is an Imam and member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association. He said he found the results 'very concerning'.
"I think these findings are based on ignorance," he said.
"I know the teachings of Islam, and I know there is nothing in Islam which hinders anyone from becoming an integrated member of society, Islam teaches loyalty to one's country.
"As a Muslim this gives us more motivation to promote the true teachings of Islam, we need to be more active."my italics
"Nothing in Islam which hinders anyone from becoming an integrated member of society." What society? The stoning homosexual and female adulterers society? I mean, that's just nuts, right? You can argue that there's nothing stopping Muslims integrating, absolutely, but suggesting there's nothing in the Q'ran that's problematic in a modern western society is just plain barking.
Hope Not Hate, an organization I support, has that weird conflicted attitude of the liberal left when it comes to Islam. It's lengthy societal attitudes survey has some very good stuff in it. For instance, asking the important question:
"When asked which initiatives would best encourage the integration of Muslims into British society, 46% would agree with a ban on the burqa, 79% choose the need to ensure that all Muslims spoke English and 71% wanted closer monitoring of faith schools, in Muslim faith schools."
Ban on dress codes is undemocratic and counter productive. I think singling out groups to speak English is highly problematic. Just do away with all faith schools, that's so obvious.
The survey breaks those asked into six tribes, obviously younger liberal through to older right wingers. They found:
"While the association of Muslim communities in Britain with extremism deeply divides the ‘tribes’, a quarter of English people believe that Islam is “a dangerous religion that incites violence”, and among the most hostile identity ‘tribe’, seven out of 10 agree. There is a sizable percentage of the population (52%) who agree that Islam poses a serious threat to Western civilisation, a cornerstone of anti-Muslim ideology."
All religion poses a serious threat to western civilization. That is, assuming one means the coming of the age of reason, post enlightenment modern 21st Century western civilization. Um, well Islamic terrorists are responsible for 99% of all terrorist acts worldwide at present so, yeah, it does seem a bit violent. I mean you do get Hindu nationalist violence or Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank but neither have much to do with religion.
As to Versi's claims. Who doesn't recognize the intolerance by far right groups? However, those groups consistently conflate race and religion. Britain First, who are deeply unpleasant in every way, highlight that they aren't a bunch of racist thugs at all by using the "some of my best friends are black" argument with a lovely photo montage of the dozen black people (and a Polish man and an Asiatic man, bloody multicultural they are) that have attended their rallies britainfirst.org/racism.
Versi argues: "James Fergusson who travelled across the country meeting Muslim communities for his book Al-Britannia, My Country: A Journey Through Muslim Britain, thought that it was an “obvious fact that integration is a two-way street”. Yet there are too many who are unyielding in their insistence that the traffic is only one way, and towards them."
But I'm not sure I understand what I, for instance, as a white British atheist, can offer in the fight for integration beyond not being racist and accepting religious freedom, or indeed anyone on the 'other side of the street'. I accept the right for anyone to practice any faith but that doesn't stop me finding it abhorrent (in the cases of Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and just plain dumb (ancient belief in sky gods). I can hold the position of not giving a shit if someone is Muslim and finding Islam abhorrent. There isn't a paradox there. They so often get conflated in the name of Islamophobia.
Versi doesn't outline just what non-Muslims can do in this two way street integration. The government certainly have a responsibility but their current policies are counter-productive to integration; their appalling housing policy, their immigration policy, and most of all, their policy on faith schools. Perhaps the media and sports have a responsibility to offer a wide image of Muslim life (whatever that is) but, other than a couple of cricketers where are Muslims represented in our media and sports? And do you need Muslim representation? I mean, no one says, thank god, at last Romesh Ranganathan or Nish Kumar finally represent Hindus in comedy. When representations are not Muslim they tend to be about race or colour. This is primarily because Islam is unique in its outlook, compared to other religious minorities; Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism. The core beliefs tend to conflict with secular society whereas the non-monotheistic religions are far more adaptable.
Versi: "But I fear that the strategy risks falling at the first hurdle, with Muslim communities in particular, if the government appears to be undermining it by tolerating hate against Muslims. Just this week, Theresa May made a conscious decision to campaign with Bob Blackman – a man who not only hosted an anti-Muslim extremist in parliament but also shared an anti-Muslim post by the infamous Tommy Robinson." my italics
This is strange as Versi offers no link to May campaigning with Bob Blackburn and I can find nothing on it. I tried to track down the link between Blackburn and the "anti-Muslim extremist" there's nothing on that either. It seems to be a commons debate that included an incredibly obscure (here) Indian nationalist, Tapan Ghosh. But then again, the commons had a state visit by Saudi's Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and I'm guessing Versi isn't calling Theresa May an international fugitive from justice because she consorts with a war criminal? I can find nothing on Bob Blackburn, he's a Tory so anything's possible. The second claim is a tweet by Tommy Robinson (from 2016) that Blackburn re-twittered. I can't find any link to it, and I'm damned if I'm spending a day going through Tommy Robinson's unpleasant Twitter feed.
To be honest, is this the best that Versi can come up with vis a vis hate crime, a so obscure Tory MP that he doesn't even come up on a google search retweeting something from 2016? Surely there's a lot worse?
"And again this week, Muslims across the country received “Punish a Muslim Day” letters, and four Muslim MPs received suspicious packages, the government response was extremely poor. Victoria Atkins, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for the home department, ignored questions asked by MPs and cited the security fund to protect places of worship – a fund that is currently closed." my italics
The Punish a Muslim Day letters are indeed depressing. But then what can be expected of the government in response? Well, Versi (once again) heads to twitter for his reference source, and even more amazingly the source is his own twitter account. Self referencing your own twitter feed?
So what does Versi twitteringly suggest?
"Disappointing lack of response to @YasminQureshiMP's questions on #PunishAMuslim letters
1. Why has no Minister made a speech on rise of anti-Muslim hatred?
2. What are the gvt going to do?
3. How much funding has been given to tackle each form of bigotry?"
Well, first up, evidence for a "rise of anti-Muslim hatred'? It was widely reported that there was a a fivefold increase in Islamophobic hate crimes after the Westminster terror attack, according to the London Mayor's office but these reportings tend to spike after terror events then fall again. But it's hard to track down what these Islamophobic hate crimes entailed. I'm not in any way suggesting that there isn't widespread racial hatred that is often aimed at Muslims:
"The Met police say the volume of hate crime they record as Islamophobic attacks has increased sharply in the last four years. The force recorded 343 incidents in the 12 months to March 2013, 1,109 in the 12 months to March 2016 and 1,260 in the 12 months to this March." The Guardian
As The Hope Not Hate survey found, hate crimes against Muslims (and Asian people in general) go up after terror attacks and, of course, there has been a concerted level of terror attacks in the UK for many years. That isn't in any way suggesting hate crime is permissible but that, specifically, Muslim hate crime is directly linked to terror attacks and media reportage of terror attacks (there is a correlation with real world events).
What is a hate crime? How does one measure it as Islamophobic? Obviously clear cases of verbal or physical abuse aimed specifically at Muslims because they are Muslim would be a hate crime based on their belief and not their colour/race/ethnicity. But often these are conflated. And because a hate crime is carried out on a Muslim individual that doesn't necessarily follow it was because they were a Muslim. Versi, on his twitter feed, highlights the example of "Man convicted of shooting dead two Muslim men outside a US mosque, but killings not classed as hate crime." Obviously, suggesting how can this not be an Islamophobic hate crime? Well, Muslims hanging outside a mosque is probably a common occurrence and the motive was unclear. This is America where shooting strangers is a national sport.
I don't want to look like I'm twitter stalking Versi but just in his most recent posts on Islamophobia he gives examples that seem utterly clear cut "A disabled man, Syed Ali, has been left terrified after racist vandals sprayed 'kill Muslims' on his front door." There is physical evidence of a hate crime against a Muslim but then some that are far less so:
"The Sunday Times allows bigotry in its paper again - this time (again) from Rod Liddle. He claims that "*Even* the Muslims" were upset about anti-Semitism. It is deeply disappointing how #Islamophobia passes by the editors without even a second thought."
Is that Islamophobia? After all, surveys do tend to find a higher level of anti-Semitic views among Muslim cohorts (BBC, for instance shows a 55% instance of anti-Semitic opinion among Muslims as opposed to 30% in the general population). UK Muslims more anti-Semitic than general population, poll finds. The report can be found here. The results in a colourful chart:
I'm not sticking up for Rod Liddle, who is deeply unpleasant and racist, but his "even Muslims" comment has a point in context.
Or another example of rampant Islamophobia from Versi's feed:
"Sorry you had to go through this Alisha Burnby. The bigotry that Muslim women face is real & worrying."
Um, people crossing over or moving away is a pretty subjective take on Islamophobia. There could be a number of factors. The child's response might not be pleasant and have undertones but children do respond openly to difference and they could be suggesting "it's one of those...um what do you call them headscarfs"? The "so what country are you from then..." certainly sounds effectively racist without context. But ultimately, not that I'm denying Alisha Burnby's experience, if this is an example of Islamophobia reporting it's really bloody loose. Is there an implication of fear or hatred? I dunno. The point I'm making is that reporting of hate crime might increase but other than physical or recorded verbal abuse it relies on self reporting which is always problematic.
Versi asks "what are the government going to do?" by having his second point as "what are the government going to do?" Which is bizarre.
As to funding, well, austerity and all that. But it's important to contextualize. Hate crime is horrible but as crimes go (unless an actual physical assault) it's fairly low down on the judicial radar. I mean, women and gay people (including myself though I'm not actually gay, just appear to be to a lot of young white masculine hard tough utterly heterosexual white males) regularly get the same persecution and their persecution isn't even based on a belief. Not that I'm suggesting that that in any way makes any hate crime acceptable.
Versi sums up his conflated confused argument with:
"On Wednesday, the Muslim Council of Britain report on integration stated that “all Muslims in their full diversity … cannot and should not be treated as anything but equal citizens, and our expectations cannot be different”.
Um, so Muslims must be treated equally? So, uh, how does that work with Halal slaughter, halal food in schools, children getting time out of school for Ramadan, etc.? One can't cry "treat us equally" then expect unique laws or provisions to accommodate one's faith, that makes no sense. And if Muslims are to be treated equally as other citizens, then non Muslim citizens and British law shouldn't have to make any accommodation beyond acceptance of Muslims as individual people. As far as I'm aware, the only legal ramifications with any other social immigrant groups is Kosher slaughter in Judaic groups and acceptance of Turbans instead of helmets on motorcyclists. Both are completely mad. Am I Sikhophobic for arguing that, well tough, you can't legally ride a motorbike Mr Singh. Get over it. Or anti-Semitic because I believe ritual slaughter is barbaric (see below)?
So how do we integrate different faith groups? Alan Travis argues "A new study by the Institute for Public Policy Research on Bedford showed that a less aggressive approach can work. It shows that Bedford is well integrated, and that the most isolated groups are eastern European workers and Asian Muslim women. For them relatively small changes such as a women-only session at the local pool as a gateway to public services, or a different way of holding a parents’ evening can make a big difference."
This is a bizarre argument. First off, Bedford isn't exactly typical in that only 1.8% of the population are of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage. And while nearly 90% of Bedford spoke English as a first language, 2.5% spoke Polish, while only 0.6% spoke Urdu and Arabic isn't even marked.
Surely women only sessions don't necessarily help integration. While I'm all for women only spaces I can't see how they can be used to integrate communities if the very reason that women aren't integrating is the religion that is segregating them. It seems nonsensical. I have no idea what a "different way of holding parents' evening" would entail and Travis doesn't link it. But I hunted the IPPR report down to here:
"But for some parts of Bedford’s community, integration has been more difficult. There is some evidence that enclaves are starting to develop. Bedford can try to head off these developments – by using planning legislation to foster ethnic diversity, for example."
That doesn't sound too optimistic.
"The least integrated groups include eastern European migrant workers – particularly men who tend to socialise with others of their nationality and may be in Bedford transiently – and some groups of Asian Muslim women. Our focus groups with women from this hard-to-reach group found that household responsibilities, very low levels of confidence, traditional views of women’s roles in the family and little understanding of the options available combined to inhibit many of these women from engaging with wider Bedford society." my italics
Thus proving the point that it's disingenuous to compare Eastern European workers with other immigrant groups and, discounting Eastern European men because of their likely transient nature, that this particular issue is unique to Asian Muslim women.
The report rightly argues:
"Some have argued that these women should be compelled to integrate, and penalised if they do not; yet our research found that the most effective strategy to overcoming this lack of integration is through actions to empower these women to overcome their obstacles."
But this is surely problematic in that the very thing holding them back is the cultural beliefs that cement their own cultural spaces and the needs are inherently caused by their very cultural beliefs (or their husbands):
"Some Asian Muslim women have apparently struggled to establish even basic indicators of integration, such as learning some English or establishing connections outside the cultural group even after living in the town a long time. A range of factors combined to impede their integration.
Hostility of family members to their engagement with people outside the social group, from husbands, mothers-in-law and parents for social and cultural reasons, and from some sons on religious grounds.
Low levels of confidence impeded these women from making the steps that facilitate the integration of other migrants. Engaging with public services, going somewhere on their own, approaching authority figures or travelling to an unfamiliar part of the town were simply too intimidating.
Household and caring responsibilities reducing the time and opportunities available for integrating."
The report clarifies how women only swimming classes could help integration, which is to be applauded:
"We found evidence that sensitive adaptations that allowed women to overcome these obstacles could have a transformative impact on their integration. For example, a local swimming pool secured permission to run a women-only swimming class, which it targeted (primarily, but not exclusively) at Asian Muslim women. Over time, this swimming class reduced scepticism from hostile family members. Women’s confidence increased, and they managed to collectively organise their childcare responsibilities. Small, judicious and empowering adaptations made integration easier."
However, this does fly in the face of Versi's call that: "all Muslims in their full diversity … cannot and should not be treated as anything but equal citizens, and our expectations cannot be different."
As it's the very religious belief that holds back Muslim women from integrating and special provisions are being called for.
The IPPR report also highlights the fact that such special consideration for, specifically, Muslim women could actually make integration more complex: "Adaptations such as these can be controversial. Gender segregation, especially in order to cater to religiously conservative groups, is a contentious issue. Similarly, using compulsive strategies to compel migrants to integrate causes concern in some quarters – but when used judiciously and in ways that are empowering and not punitive, there is a place for such measures."
And as the special parent evenings, once more, it flies in the face of Versi argument to be treated equally:
"Local schools have made adaptations to make it easier for parents to come to parents’ evenings if they do not speak good English, or do not understand the British school system, by allowing parents to accompany children during the school day."
The oddest thing about the report is that it offers no quantitative or qualitative data so it's impossible to tell if it's been successful in any way.
So having completely dismissed Versi's arguments, how then can communities (and I'm singling out Muslim communities here just like the insidious Louise Casey) integrate better?
Miqdaad Versi (assistant secretary general of The Muslim Council of Britain) in The Guardian asserts "The government needs to rethink its approach if there is to be any hope of a successful strategy for Muslim communities."
Versi is responding mostly to Louise Casey's recent assertion that the government have not implemented any of her suggestions in her review of social integration in Britain. He also criticizes Casey's focus being primarily on Muslim communities.
Louise Casey collecting her 'public figure with the silliest hats' award 2016
The problem with the debate around Islam and Muslim integration in the UK (or indeed in western Europe) is the conflation of race, culture and religion. Versi is as guilty as everyone else in this in his article:
"More than 10 years ago, David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, declared that integration was “a two-way street”...He affirmed that we could aspire to be a more united country if we recognised our diversity.
Within the space of a decade, that attitude dissipated. It reflected the success of a core group of ideologues keen to unleash a phoney culture war that scapegoated Muslims and cast doubt on this country’s diversity. Once in office, Cameron declared that multiculturalism allowed people to lead separate lives, and therefore led to extremism." my italics
Versi doesn't elaborate on who this core group of ideologues are and what their purpose is in scapegoating Muslims. It sounds an awful lot like a paranoid conspiracy theory.
The irony in Versi's claim is that Cameron's government oversaw the largest growth in Faith Schools in the UK.
"At the start of January 2017 there were 6,813 state funded faith schools in England. The majority were primary schools; 6,176 or 37% of all state funded primaries. The 637 secondary faith schools made up 19% of all state funded mainstream secondaries. The proportion of state funded faith schools has increased gradually over time from 35% of primaries and 16% of secondaries in January 2000." (from Faith Schools in England: FAQs, House of Commons Briefing Paper, March 2017)
I'm under the assumption here that faith schools are poor vehicles for social integration. Further, I'm making an assumption that the majority of pupils in Church of England and Catholic schools do not have the same difficulties with integration as their peers in Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Sikh schools by virtue of having a longer 'heritage' in British culture, the whole Christianity/the West thing (and probably being white). Thus, I'm making an assumption that, as Muslims make up the largest non-Christian denomination group, that faith schools have the largest impact on integration for Muslim students. Further, the growth of Muslim faith schools far outweighs other faith schools:
"The number of state funded faith schools in England broken down by level and religion is given in the table at the end of this section. Church of England schools were the most common type among primary schools (26% of all primaries); Roman Catholic schools the most numerous type of faith school at secondary level (9%). Non-Christian schools were very much in the minority; there were 48 Jewish, 27 Muslim, 11 Sikh and 5 Hindu schools at the start of January 2017. While the number of
Christian schools has fallen slightly since 2007 the number of non Christian schools has increased. Between January 2007 and September 2017 the number of Jewish schools increased by 11, Muslim schools by 20, Sikh schools by 9 and all the Hindu schools have opened since 2008." my italics
In short, there are far more Christian faith schools but their number has decreased, whilst the number of 'other' faith schools has greatly increased, Muslim faith schools increasing the most (from 0 in 2000 to 27 in 2017).
Though, again, it's important to note that those attending faith schools are a tiny minority (just under 10,000 in a Muslim population of 2.6 million) though again, Casey highlights geographical social isolation, specifically for the Muslim population, and there is still an underlying trend for particular areas in cities to be 'Muslim areas,' just as in the past there were Italian or Chinese areas (though there is already a conflation of race, ethnicity, culture there) and, as schools now define their selection primarily by 'catchment area' the suggestion is that many schools either have a high white Christian or secular intake or in areas with a large Muslim population, a high Asian Muslim intake, thus faith schools by proxy.
Furthermore, religious schools often segregate by gender, further isolating individuals socially. This is particularly problematic with patriarchal fundamentalist religious groups.
The call for integration beside the rise in faith schools seems utterly paradoxical.
Versi spends much of his time 'outing' stories in the media as having an Islamic bias. The BBC ran a piece on him The man correcting stories about Muslims. On faith schools, for instance, Versi complained on Twitter about a piece in The Independent which carried this picture in their story...
...and a BBC piece reporting the same findings: Thousands of children taught in 'illegal schools'. Versi argues disingenuously (he does this a lot as we'll see) that the"Vast majority of faith schools are Christian yet the @Independent chooses to have a picture of a Muslim faith school..."
Then notes "The BBC changed its picture on its faith schools story from Muslim-focussed [sic] to more generic..."
"Sir Michael Wilshaw said a crackdown had found more than 100 suspected illegal schools - half of which were faith-based, Ofsted said.
Roughly a third of them were Islamic and a sixth either Christian or Jewish."
As the worst culprits in this story were indeed Muslim faith schools isn't it reasonable to show a picture of a Muslim faith school?
The Independent piece gives examples from a fundamentalist Christian, Jewish and Islamic school and shows the negative impact of any religious practice in school and the divisive nature of faith schooling from more than one side of the divide:
"One student recognised that his Church of England primary was “excellent” in many ways, and that he broadly remembers “being very happy there”, however he recalled the treatment of “one boy from a Muslim family” in his year: ”Being a faith school, we had religious assemblies, and being from a Muslim family, Ali was not allowed to attend them. He sat in a room adjoining the hall during these gatherings. I have a very clear memory of seeing him peering through the glass into the hall, trying to see if assembly was over. Could there be any clearer image to reinforce the notion that Ali was not fully ‘one of us’?”"
In The BBC piece: "In a letter to Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, Sir Michael said his team of seven experienced inspectors, working closely with DfE officials, had identified more than 100 suspected unregistered schools across the country since January.
"The evidence they have gathered so far during this short period firmly reinforces my belief that there are many more children hidden away from the view of the authorities in unregistered schools across the country than previously thought," he said."
It's precisely the practice of outing Islamophobic media prejudices which makes the reporting of such sensitive issues so problematic, leading to right wing groups believing in crazed conspiracy cover ups.
Both news pieces focused on homophobic teaching in faith schools. We know from survey reporting British social attitudes that:
"Not surprisingly, religious belief is closely linked to attitudes to homosexuality. Those who aren't religious are the least likely to see it as always or mostly wrong, only 16 per cent do so. This compares to disapproval rates of over a third among Anglicans (40 per cent) and Catholics (35 per cent). The highest disapproval of all is found among non-Christians, six in ten (61 per cent) of whom see homosexuality as always or mostly wrong (although these figures need to be treated with caution due to the small sample sizes involved)."
Further, an ICM poll for Channel 4 News found Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal.
"Extensive polling conducted by ICM suggests that in most cases attitudes held by the British Muslim population do not broadly differ from those held by the population at large, but there are significant differences when it comes to some issues such as homosexuality and women’s rights.
Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the findings were “extremely worrying” as they suggested on many issues Muslims were “nation within a nation”."
Obviously one poll doesn't tell us the whole picture on integration vis a vis Muslims in Britain. But what is interesting in a Guardian article asking young Muslims to respond to the Channel 4 poll many of the same arguments are trotted out, not all Muslims are the same you know and conflation of race/ethnicity and/or nationality with religion:
What British Muslims really think about Channel 4's show.
Nazia suggests "Muslims aren’t one block of consciousness; Pakistani Muslims often have differing views to Arab Muslims, African Muslims often have differing views to Malaysian Muslims and so on. What kind of Muslims did the sample consist of? Sunni, Shia? Hanafi, Hanbali? Deobandi or Barelwi? To use only 1081 Muslims as a sample to represent 3 million Muslims is inflammatory, misleading and dangerous."
Unfortunately that's how all polls work. Small samples extrapolated to wider population. And as to general demographics; see Brexit. I didn't vote for it. But 52% of people I probably have no relation to other than the umbrella notion of nationality, British, did.
Muslims are all unique? That makes no sense. They may have different cultural or geographical backgrounds but surely the core beliefs are based on Koranic teaching, no? All the different sects within Islam all sing from the same hymn sheet, as it were, just as the myriad sects of Christianity conform to biblical teaching (well, all except the Church of England which is like Christianity's laisser faire cousin on stuff like women or homosexuality), that's the point of any religion. All these different cultural, geographically dislocated groups all come together as Muslim. It's a bizarre argument I've often seen reported. But we're all different! But surely not. I mean, Sunni and Shia are pretty much urban and rural sects that differ over history and who was the rightful heir to a middle Eastern kingdom but both believe in the same teachings from the same book, the same god, the same prophet. Happy to be corrected.
And Nazia pulls out the, ok some who share my religious belief are crazy but I'm not argument:
" It was claimed that Muslims are homophobic, misogynistic and that they wish to impose ‘sharia law’. I’m not denying that these elements exist but more emphasis should have been made on the possible cultural background to these views; many rural communities in countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh do have a culture of accepting polygamy and not accepting non-heterosexual relationships."
Which is an odd argument. The Muslims who are homophobic misogynists are so because they come from countries that are far more Islamic. Huh?
Ibrahim argues we shouldn't conflate race and religion by conflating race and religion:
"Many British Muslims hold traditional values that others of other faiths may hold such as disagreeing with same-sex marriage. Yet overwhelming evidence points to the fact that we are a patriotic community and have a strong affiliation and sense of belonging to this great nation. Moreover, Trevor Philips and the show portrayed segregated schools as an Islamic problem, that somehow where a school finds itself admitting children of a certain colour, that it is a religious issue. I would argue that this is a cultural and geographical issue and conflating religion with state school segregation is ridiculous."
Many of the Muslim faith are homophobic but we're proudly British. Uh, I think that might be conflating faith and nationality. Islamic segregated schools are particularly problematic for the very reasons of race and culture which are probably not (such) a problem in Christian segregated schools and they certainly do not help with integration.
This dichotomy of British and Muslim comes up again and again throughout the points. Take Ismael, for instance:
"The questions were vague including the question on whether homosexuality should be banned. Traditional Islam bans it so many Muslim respondents would have responded based their answer on that, not from the viewpoint of UK being a secular state."
So, one might have based one's answer on the teachings of one's faith rather than answering as someone who lives in a western secular state. Isn't that the fundamental (no pun) problem with any religion whose teachings conflict with a modern secular state? This is generally not problematic when it comes to Christianity as it's shown itself to be ridiculously adaptable. This might yet happen with younger Muslims growing up in western countries where the values of their faith do not gel with the values of their society.
Just anecdotally, I taught in a college for ten years and it had a mixed intake and there was a dispiriting divide in the subjects taken by Muslim students and non-Muslim students (I had to teach English to various vocational classes, I.T. was roughly a 90% Asian Muslim intake) with very few Muslim students in humanity courses. There was also a gender divide as I taught hundreds of Asian Muslim students but I can't remember one single female Muslim student in all the courses I taught (vocational English to Hair and Beauty (great fun), I.T., Sports, Construction, Child Care) A-Level Eng Lit, Communication Studies, Media and Film. There was a local college for Muslim women aged 16-19 and I, as a male of sexually virile years, was not allowed to teach there (that's what I was told, well not the sexually virile bit but that male teachers were not allowed).
Having said all that I never witnessed any Islamophobia or racism. Plenty of casual sexism and homophobia unfortunately, from young men from all cultural backgrounds. Patriarchal homophobic perceptions are certainly not limited to Muslims.
Back to Versi who suggests:
"Just before he [Cameron] left office, the former prime minister charged Dame Louise Casey with investigating the state of integration in our country. For those looking to attack Muslims and “failed multiculturalism”, she did not fail to deliver. Casey put a “moral onus on ethnic minorities for the supposed failures of integration”, proclaimed integration was “not a two-way street” and publicly used her platform to wrongly conflate criminal acts with sharia law. This all builds up a dangerous narrative in the public mind." my italics
Versi disingenuously suggests Casey put a special effort into attacking Muslims, which is just nonsense. The Casey review was about integration and the greatest problems with integration were not with Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish or any other faiths and it focused particularly on Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants as they have the 'double bind' of integrating in that they are both Asian and Muslim. They are also the fastest growing immigrant groups (excepting Eastern European migrants). She also highlights that the cultural practices of said groups conflict the most with what she rather unpleasantly calls "British values." She also does not "put a moral onus on ethnic minorities for the supposed failures of integration,” this is in fact the suggestion from an article in Prospect Magazine by Oliver Kamm.
Kamm tells us that the Casey review is "the type of document that would appeal to a politician who blames traffic jams on immigrants and expresses discomfort when hearing foreign languages on public transport. It warns that segregation and social exclusion are at “worrying” levels, and it does so—extraordinarily—without indicating what it would accept as countervailing evidence."
I've read the review (available as a pdf here) and I don't recognize Kamm's interpretation. It does indeed single out Muslim integration as the most highly problematic and does so on factors including language acquisition (which is discussed further below), terrorism/extremism, women's inequality, intolerance of different sexuality, and "regressive attitudes" by which she quotes the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan:
“When I was younger you didn’t see people wearing hijabs and niqabs, not even in Pakistan when I visited my family. In London we got on. People dressed the same. What you see now are people born and raised here who are choosing to wear the jilbab or niqab. There is a question to be asked about what is going on in those homes. What’s insidious is if people are starting to think it is appropriate to treat women differently or that it has been forced on them. What worries me is children being forced to adopt a lifestyle. It’s not for me to tell women what to wear. But I do think that in public service we should be able to see each other’s faces. Eye contact matters. You should be able to see the face. There is no other city in the world where I would want to raise my daughters than London.
They have rights, they have protection, the right to wear what they like, think what they like, to meet who they like, to study what they like, more than they would in any other country.”
To deny these are issues almost completely unique (openly that is) to Muslim culture in the UK is to be a bit deluded but, as Casey has found, to raise these questions is to be branded racist or Islamophobic. There was a similar response to her review of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal in 2015 ( pdf here), in which she found a general fear in the council and the police of appearing racist or Islamophobic in highlighting that the perpetrators were Muslims of Pakistani heritage (same in Oxford, Rochdale, Oldham, etc.). If one suggests there is a direct link between a deeply conservative patriarchal culture and sexual exploitation (even though this seems perfectly obvious) one can be branded Islamophobic or racist. And arguments against this position often simply conflate many cultural issues. Take Alan Travis in The Guardian responding to the Casey review:
"The pace of immigration itself appears to have overtaken Dame Louise Casey’s flawed report into the state of social integration in Britain, with the result that her aggressive action plan, with its calls for British loyalty oaths for new migrants, is likely to prove counterproductive.
Casey’s experience of her inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham has rightly led her to a strong understanding of the problems that misogyny and the oppression of women and girls can cause when they are allowed to dominate in small, separate, closed communities.
But her justified desire to ensure such scandals are not left to fester in dark corners of our society has led her to overlook the rapidly changing nature of Britain’s migrant communities. Such scandals are not the sole preserve of one British Pakistani community or indeed any particular community, as the domestic violence records of Britain’s police forces can clearly testify."
No one argues that child sexual exploitation is not an issue across cultures, class, race, etc. (it's a patriarchal power issue not racial or religious, though religion by virtue of being patriarchal and dominated by power dynamics is particularly problematic). Travis here, in trying to suggest that CSE and patriarchal Pakistani Muslim cultural beliefs have no link conflates child sexual exploitation with domestic violence (two separate issues). It simply is not racist or Islamophobic to suggest someone who practices a deeply patriarchal religion (as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are) in a fundamentalist way often hold attitudes about women that are positively pre-medieval.
Travis suggests: "But it is odd that her inquiry focuses almost totally on Britain’s Muslim communities, largely from Pakistan, and who mostly came to the UK more than 20 years ago. She has far less to say about the new Polish, Romanian or eastern European communities who have made up the bulk of Britain’s immigrants over the past 15 years. She mentions Muslims 249 times in her report, but there are only 14 references to Polish communities."
Versi, in his Guardian piece makes the same fallacious argument:
"Consider, for instance, the laudable objective of reducing the number of people who cannot speak English, and therefore struggle to participate in society. This week, Casey took to the airwaves with the eye-catching ultimatum that the government should set a deadline for everyone to speak English. Rather than examine the issue as it affects all sections of British society, last year she suggested that this was a problem in Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities, failing to acknowledge that the greatest number of those unable to speak English well, are “other white”."
The "other white" are predominantly Polish and other EU nationals. The problem with counting EU nationals in the number of non-native speakers is that being EU migrant workers there is free movement and no guarantee that these numbers will be constant, especially with Brexit coming. It's disingenuous to compare Polish nationals in the UK with Pakistani nationals, for instance, because of EU free movement. If indeed the near 1 million Poles in the UK were to stay after Brexit then the same language issues would indeed apply. Though, importantly, EU nationals such as Polish immigrants tend to not have the same cultural differences (being white, western European secular immigrants) as fundamentalist Muslims. To put it another way, there is no other complication to integration of EU nationals other than language, which is not the same for Asian Muslims (where race and ethnicity and culture and religion are all integration factors).
Versi then highlights the other common fallacious argument in the debate:
"Perhaps it would be good to recognise why people choose to live near someone familiar to them, as expat Brits do in Spain, and why others may opt to live in segregated communities for complex reasons, such as housing policy or “white flight”, rather than focusing primarily on immigrant communities. Policies based on such an approach would acknowledge that segregation among Muslims has actually been falling, and that a large and growing proportion (89% in 2015-16) thought their local area was “a place where people from different backgrounds get on well”." italics highlight links in the article.
The old Brits in Spain example is disingenuous as those British have no long term stake in that country, they are effectively tourists. While the idea of Brits in Spain still living as Brits might be depressing (it is) it bares no similarity to actual immigration.
Travis also uses the same tired conflated argument in his piece:
"The 2011 census showed that not speaking any English was a problem that affected only 138,000 migrants, fewer than 0.3% of the population. Many of those who spoke no English at all were an older generation who had come as grandparents to join their families. Some have been in Britain for decades without learning English – not unlike the retired Brits on the Spanish Costas."
Housing is certainly a factor in segregation and non-integration. Poor immigrants will be housed or live in the most deprived areas, and there is a link between deprivation and lack of social integration.
All segregation by locality in the report by the University of Manchester (which Versi cites) shows a slight decrease in "separation" but the report highlights that this is only based on housing and "The Census does not say much about mixing at work or in school, which are important aspects of socialising." The report also highlights that African and Caribbean saw the greatest decrease in segregation and in religious groups, Hindus and Buddhists saw the greatest decrease. For Versi's point about "complex reasons" for integration he sources a 2005 report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation whose main remit is highlighting disparities in social class and poverty, so unsurprisingly that report focuses on deprivation. It's also 13 years old.
The 89% figure is from a government community life survey carried out face to face with 3000 people here and has nothing to say on race, ethnicity or religion so I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion.
In Oliver Kamm's piece in Prospect you once again see the bizarre lopsided thinking in the discussion:
"I state my reservations about the Casey review and about the competence of Casey herself as dispassionately as I can but one message from her review is especially insidious. She criticises public institutions that “have ignored or even condoned regressive, divisive and harmful cultural and religious practices, for fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic.” She rightly refers to the Rotherham child abuse scandal as “a catastrophic example of authorities turning a blind eye to harm in order to avoid the need to confront a particular community.”
As it happens, it was my newspaper and my colleague Andrew Norfolk who exposed the horrific sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham. And the scandal is bigger still than Casey allows for. Jayne Senior, the youth worker who approached The Times to expose the abuse, identifies an institutional failing with the police, who “did nothing and Senior believes underlying their inertia was disgust for the girls. They were ‘dirty little slags, the worst type since they’d ‘even go with Pakis’ and had brought it on themselves” (profile of “The Rotherham Whistleblower,” Times magazine, 19th March 2016)."
As a reasoned discussion this makes no sense. It's insidious of Casey to suggest that public instititutions ignore regressive practices for fear of being branded racist and highlights Rotherham council. He then highlights that Prospect exposed the child sexual exploitation there and that it runs deep within the public institutions there. Huh? So how is Casey's assertions insidious? He seems to agree with her. It's very peculiar logic.
Kamm's piece is full of this bizarre stuff:
"The Casey review manages to be simultaneously turbid and shallow. It consistently confuses the issues of segregation and susceptibility to extremism."
Uh, so what does lead to susceptibility to extremism then? Who knows? Kamm never tells us.
"The most culpable aspect of the Casey review is that it lacks rigour and continually appeals to “feelings” rather than facts."
Then Kamm, with no irony, adds:
"You get the feeling—or at least I do—from Casey’s report that she is seeking an off-the-shelf example of purported political correctness without fully grasping the scale and scandal of what she’s dealing with. But it serves to place the moral onus on ethnic minorities for supposed failures of integration. That’s a shabby thing to do, in a document that bears more resemblance to a long and unsubstantiated opinion column than a serious review of the state of Britain."
How perplexing.
I think (or feel?) that Casey highlights the lack of government initiatives, hence why she argued in The Guardian a couple of months back "ministers have done absolutely nothing about cohesion."
She does also put an onus on Muslim groups and religious leaders as well as British Muslims by highlighting that they alone have these problems integrating in UK society (i.e. the same problems are not present in Sikh or Hindu communities and it's not about race because there aren't the same problems with non-Muslim African or Afro-Caribbean communities).
Versi argues "It is therefore a relief that the government’s green paper on integration appears to have understood why the Casey Review was the wrong approach. Yes, there are some factual errors, a lack of sufficient funding for the work, a prioritisation that does not align to the need in our society – according to the equalities thinktank the Runnymede Trust – and a disproportionate focus on Pakistani and Bangladeshi, as well as Muslim, communities. But the tone was far more consultative and positive." italics refers to source references.
The source references are, unfortunately, all to Omar Khan on twitter (advice to the wise, don't use twitter as a reference source): Omar Khan suggests, for instance, on "factual errors":
"According to 2011 Census and govt website published this month, 59% of ppl who don't speak English are women. Yet today we're hearing government claim it's 'up to 70%' or '60-70%'. There is of course a gender equality issue, but making up numbers isn't going to tackle sexism."
The 70% claim was from a piece by Sajid Khan about the green paper of 2018 (7 years after the 2011 census) which suggests the problem is actually getting worse, seven years on:
“We estimate that there [are] 770,000 people that live in [England] that speak hardly any or no English. That figure will be in the report. And most of those people – we estimate 60 to 70% – are women. And most of those women, in turn, are of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin.”
The problem with relying on census data is highlighted by the Office of National Statistics istelf:
"The Office for National Statistics itself questioned the value of a census that takes place only every ten years of a population that is increasingly mobile: “This can be a significant issue in areas experiencing rapid population change, or when the importance of a particular socio-demographic topic suddenly changes in response to new or emerging Government policies and priorities.”
The last census was 7 years ago. I couldn't actually find data on non-English speakers/women from the 2001 census as comparison (it might not even have been data).
As to Versi's suggestion that "It is therefore a relief that the government’s green paper on integration appears to have understood why the Casey Review was the wrong approach" I'm a little perplexed as the Green Paper mostly reinforces Casey's arguments.
On language matters the paper reinforces a notion that there is a problem in Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim communities (especially amongst women):
"By ethnicity, Pakistani (18.9%) and Bangladeshi (21.9%) groups have the highest proportions of people aged 16 or over with poor English language proficiency. By faith community, the Muslim population has the highest proportion of people aged 16 and over who cannot speak English well or at all (16%). Across the population as a whole, more women than men report not speaking English well or at all (2.1% compared with 1.5% for men)."
It's important to remember that the government Green Paper is a report on what the government intends to do to help alleviate segregation whereas the Casey review was highlighting why segregation occurs. But still the Green Paper argues that a key problem is the perpetual "first generation" integration problem seemingly unique to Muslim communities:
"The Casey Review refers to a study by Bristol University,which found that half of British Pakistanis married in Pakistan, and that most of these marriages were between cousins or other members of extended kin groups. First cousin marriages are detrimental where they restrict individuals’ right to choose, as well as potentially having harmful health consequences for children born to such marriages.
The Casey Review highlighted the double discrimination faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people who are also from ethnic minority and faith backgrounds. It is troubling that the LGBT homelessness charity, the Albert Kennedy Trust, found in 2016/17 that 59% of its
service users were people from non-White British backgrounds and 25% of service users declared having a faith/ religious background.
Influences from overseas
The links many immigrant communities have to their countries of origin can present challenges to
integration where social or cultural norms overseas differ from British values and influence the way people behave here. This may be the case where, for example, marriage expectations reduce freedom of choice or perpetuate a ‘first generation in every generation’ effect; and continued consumption of media or other messaging incompatible with British values has an adverse effect on individuals’ understanding of and response to the society in which they live."
This is all from the Casey Review and reinforced in the green paper.
Versi argues: "The prime minister, for example, celebrates our diversity as a nation in the foreword to the green paper, and explicitly recognises faith as an enabler for good; the report proposes policies to tackle real barriers to integration of minority communities, such as poverty and social mobility, labour market inequalities and political participation. There are discussions on the importance of tackling discrimination and hate crime."
Well, she would wouldn't she, as would anyone forewording a green paper on diversity and integration. She would also recognize faith as an enabler of good, as she professes to being a Christian (ha! has she not read the Gospel of Matthew? oh blessed meek).
"The report proposes policies to tackle real barriers to integration," as opposed to those imaginary cultural barriers?
All hate crimes are wrong. There, god, I feel I have to state this. Even though it's obvious. I'm a vegan atheist, I think no one should be horrid to anyone (including ickle animals).
One of the key problems with the Casey review is the notion of promoting "British Values."
I like Kieran Yates' British Values Zine.
I tend to think of myself as a citizen of Europe. Well I'm buggered then aren't I?
According to Ofsted, the school's inspectorate, these values are:
An interesting example of this conflict is the publishing of cartoons about Jesus and Mohammed. Most came to the defence of Charlie Hebdo after the Paris attack but if there had been no attack would the publishing of the cartoons have been criticized (as they were in Denmark) as Islamophobic? A piece by Borja Bergareche in Medium looked back at the Danish cartoon 'scandal:
"Instead of portraying the cartoon saga as the latest chapter on Huntington´s “clash of civilizations,” it is more revealing to see the caricatures as a mirror that reflected, among other things, very disturbing underlying dynamics both in continental Europe and in the US/UK. Is the Anglo-Saxon multicultural model paying the price of tolerance, silenced and bowing to the intimidation of Islamist radicals? Will Europe´s hypocritical defense of the right to make fun of (the Muslim) god and its inability to adapt itself to the presence of European Muslim communities make it an involuntary ally of Muslim fanatics?"
The cartoons themselves weren't especially offensive as far as I could see. However, the reason for publishing them is another matter. Bergareche rightly points out that the squeamishness of UK newspapers (none published any of the cartoons when discussing them) felt wrong, how can you discuss something in absentia? Wouldn't it have been healthier to discuss said cartoons and have examples of them to show the readership what exactly they were talking about (one had to go online to see them). As it turned out they broke the comedy law by not being funny in any way. The Times in the UK ran with an editorial explaining why they didn't publish the cartoons:
"“To duplicate these cartoons several months after they were originally printed also has an element of exhibitionism to it. To present them in front of the public for debate is not a value-neutral exercise (…) On balance, we have chosen not to publish the cartoons but to provide weblinks to those who wish to see them. The crucial theme here is choice. The truth is that drawing the line in instances such as these is not a black-and-white question (…) The Times would, for example, have reservations about printing a cartoon of Christ in a Nazi uniform sketched because sympathizers of Hitler had conducted awful crimes in the name of Christianity.”"
Except, as ever the analogy makes no sense because there isn't an equivalent blasphemy in western secular countries. The cartoon that really seemed to cause the most offence was a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his headgear. Obviously, the non-too subtle satirical intent being about Muslims as terrorists. Now, while the intent might have been Islamophobic the cartoon intents seem to be reasonable. Most terrorism in the world now is carried out by Muslims in the name of the prophet M. So an analogy of Jesus as a Nazi makes no sense as that has no bearing on reality. I have no idea of who these sympathizers of Hitler carrying out terrible crimes in the name of Christianity are. Who knows? Methinks the editor's made that one up to justify their position. The point is that the original publication by a right wing Danish newspaper probably had the intention of promoting hostility to Muslims. But UK newspapers reproducing them in a discussion of the issues would not. It's about context. Thus, tolerance of religious belief is a core value of all western secular societies but then also a core value is being able to critique, criticize or indeed, laugh at those beliefs. It's important to remember that any religious belief is irrational. Believing in supernatural things with no evidence is bizarre. There's only one difference between belief in crystal healing, fairies, ghosts, psychic abilities and a belief in god, the cultural aspect of religious belief. But that is certainly not something that should be encouraged (as in faith schools).
Thus, any rational person would agree that racism is not tolerated in a decent society. Intolerance of religion or religious belief is also not on the radar. But intolerance and critique or satire are two different things.
There's an example on YT of Miqdaad Versi's opinions on integration and extremism in which he bizarrely argues that "ideology is not the cause" of young Muslims becoming radicalized and that "Islamic values and Islam are the solutions to these people not the problem" and, I think, that Ayaan Hirsi Ali rightly points out that radicalization isn't about isolation or persecution but that "they've bought into the narrative that Muslims are victims...and all these conspiracy theories need to end and if you depict Muslims as victims you are only helping the Islamic extremists who are selling to young people that Islam is under siege..." Versi replies "everybody needs to work together to solve the problem of extremism but there's no special duty on Muslims." Challenged by Emily Maitlis reiterating the victim mentality among extremists, she asks "so what issues have to be addressed here?" Versi replies "we have a situation where 50% of children think there are too many Muslims in the UK." I've tried to track down a source for this. Nothing. "Bullying has grown by over 70% according to Childline." Again, trying to track this figure...Childline report from that year highlights spikes in bullying after terror attacks but they define them as "racist bullying".
"Racial bullying counselling trends."
"We have a situation where real Islamophobia is becoming socially acceptable," Versi adds, seeming to prove Hirsi Ali's point. We're all out to attack Muslims. And that's why young Muslims are drawn to IS. Hirsi Ali suggests to Versi "I think you are clearly a part of the problem...if you are disgusted by the actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria then you should be equally disgusted by the theology that makes it right and justifies it. That's within Islam. That's what Muslims need to take ownership of."
While I'm not in accord with Hirsi Ali suggesting somehow that Muslims should take ownership of extremism I do agree that denying it's an Islamic problem is a bit weird and suggesting that the young people who go off to fight in Syria or the crazies that blow themselves up in public places are drawn to doing this because they are victimized seems nonsensical. Especially when the link between radicalization and particular Islamic faith leaders and particular Mosques is exposed.
I often disagree politically with Hirsi Ali (I'm sure she's upset by that) but I think she's correct in suggesting that Miqdaad Versi's position is part of 'the problem.' To continually blame Islamic terrorism on social factors rather than Islam is weird. To continually ramp up the idea that Islamophobia is rampant feeds into a 'them and us' mentality, a victimized mentality. Yet there are many problems in the UK that are specifically linked to Islam and Muslims; terrorism, FGM, female inequality, homophobia, anti-semitism (see below), etc. While no doubt there are many racist hate crimes carried out on Muslims one has to balance a debate by looking in house at the problems in our society explicitly linked to Islam.
"With news of Britain First’s Facebook page being banned, we should recognise that these are challenges across all parts of society, and give due regard to the intolerance of Muslims among a large section of our society. Yet too often, people ignore the challenges faced by the “white British” population in favour of a conception of a “top-down, mono-nationalist and establishment ‘British values’ approach”, which assumes it is only the non-white “other” people who must be civilised.""
This is a really problematic argument. "Intolerance of Muslims among a large section of society"? I just don't recognize that. Anecdotally, I live in a town with a 12% Muslim population at the last census but I've never, in the 20 years I've lived here, in a predominantly Asian Muslim area, heard anyone using language that could be construed as Islamophobic. I hear deeply unpleasant misogynistic and homophobic comments continually though. Versi offers no data on this. Many of the surveys on non-Muslim British attitudes to Islam and Muslims are skewed by asking questions like:
"The majority of Britons questioned in a survey believe Islam is not compatible with British values.
The poll also found almost a third of those asked believe Islam is a violent religion and promotes acts of violence in the UK." BBC
But Islam isn't compatible with western democratic values. Nor is Christianity or Judaism. That's just a fact isn't it? You know, the whole if you don't believe in this religion you're going to hell thing, the women thing, the homosexual thing, the ritual slaughter thing (in Islam/Judaism), etc. etc.
And they're all horribly violent religions. And in the hands of fundamentalists they became a reason to kill people in horrible ways. Again, these are surely just actual facts. I mean, I don't have to quote some of the edifying passages do I?
"The Hadith do unequivocally condemn male homosexual acts. The Qur’an (4:16) demands unspecified punishment for men guilty of lewdness together unless they repent.
Yet, the Prophet is supposed to have declared that both the active and the passive partner should be subject to the same penalty as for zina (illicit heterosexual sex, usually adultery), namely execution by stoning.
Abu Dawud’s authoritative hadith collection records a report from Abdullah ibn Abbas:
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done (38:4447)." Pink News
As to women: the website religionofpeace gets a lot of calls of Islamophobic but it seems perfectly reasonable to criticize a religion using quotes from the religious text.
Of course, this is assuming that any Muslim practices Islamic teaching.
"TheReligionofPeace.com strongly condemns any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world over their religion. Every person is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds.
We generally support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, women, consenting adults, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others."
Which I agree with. Islam is bad, Muslims are individuals like you or me. It's not tough to understand that, is it? The point is highlighted in the BBC article:
"Farhad Ahmad, 24, is an Imam and member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association. He said he found the results 'very concerning'.
"I think these findings are based on ignorance," he said.
"I know the teachings of Islam, and I know there is nothing in Islam which hinders anyone from becoming an integrated member of society, Islam teaches loyalty to one's country.
"As a Muslim this gives us more motivation to promote the true teachings of Islam, we need to be more active."my italics
"Nothing in Islam which hinders anyone from becoming an integrated member of society." What society? The stoning homosexual and female adulterers society? I mean, that's just nuts, right? You can argue that there's nothing stopping Muslims integrating, absolutely, but suggesting there's nothing in the Q'ran that's problematic in a modern western society is just plain barking.
Hope Not Hate, an organization I support, has that weird conflicted attitude of the liberal left when it comes to Islam. It's lengthy societal attitudes survey has some very good stuff in it. For instance, asking the important question:
"When asked which initiatives would best encourage the integration of Muslims into British society, 46% would agree with a ban on the burqa, 79% choose the need to ensure that all Muslims spoke English and 71% wanted closer monitoring of faith schools, in Muslim faith schools."
Ban on dress codes is undemocratic and counter productive. I think singling out groups to speak English is highly problematic. Just do away with all faith schools, that's so obvious.
The survey breaks those asked into six tribes, obviously younger liberal through to older right wingers. They found:
"While the association of Muslim communities in Britain with extremism deeply divides the ‘tribes’, a quarter of English people believe that Islam is “a dangerous religion that incites violence”, and among the most hostile identity ‘tribe’, seven out of 10 agree. There is a sizable percentage of the population (52%) who agree that Islam poses a serious threat to Western civilisation, a cornerstone of anti-Muslim ideology."
All religion poses a serious threat to western civilization. That is, assuming one means the coming of the age of reason, post enlightenment modern 21st Century western civilization. Um, well Islamic terrorists are responsible for 99% of all terrorist acts worldwide at present so, yeah, it does seem a bit violent. I mean you do get Hindu nationalist violence or Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank but neither have much to do with religion.
As to Versi's claims. Who doesn't recognize the intolerance by far right groups? However, those groups consistently conflate race and religion. Britain First, who are deeply unpleasant in every way, highlight that they aren't a bunch of racist thugs at all by using the "some of my best friends are black" argument with a lovely photo montage of the dozen black people (and a Polish man and an Asiatic man, bloody multicultural they are) that have attended their rallies britainfirst.org/racism.
Versi argues: "James Fergusson who travelled across the country meeting Muslim communities for his book Al-Britannia, My Country: A Journey Through Muslim Britain, thought that it was an “obvious fact that integration is a two-way street”. Yet there are too many who are unyielding in their insistence that the traffic is only one way, and towards them."
But I'm not sure I understand what I, for instance, as a white British atheist, can offer in the fight for integration beyond not being racist and accepting religious freedom, or indeed anyone on the 'other side of the street'. I accept the right for anyone to practice any faith but that doesn't stop me finding it abhorrent (in the cases of Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and just plain dumb (ancient belief in sky gods). I can hold the position of not giving a shit if someone is Muslim and finding Islam abhorrent. There isn't a paradox there. They so often get conflated in the name of Islamophobia.
Versi doesn't outline just what non-Muslims can do in this two way street integration. The government certainly have a responsibility but their current policies are counter-productive to integration; their appalling housing policy, their immigration policy, and most of all, their policy on faith schools. Perhaps the media and sports have a responsibility to offer a wide image of Muslim life (whatever that is) but, other than a couple of cricketers where are Muslims represented in our media and sports? And do you need Muslim representation? I mean, no one says, thank god, at last Romesh Ranganathan or Nish Kumar finally represent Hindus in comedy. When representations are not Muslim they tend to be about race or colour. This is primarily because Islam is unique in its outlook, compared to other religious minorities; Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism. The core beliefs tend to conflict with secular society whereas the non-monotheistic religions are far more adaptable.
Versi: "But I fear that the strategy risks falling at the first hurdle, with Muslim communities in particular, if the government appears to be undermining it by tolerating hate against Muslims. Just this week, Theresa May made a conscious decision to campaign with Bob Blackman – a man who not only hosted an anti-Muslim extremist in parliament but also shared an anti-Muslim post by the infamous Tommy Robinson." my italics
This is strange as Versi offers no link to May campaigning with Bob Blackburn and I can find nothing on it. I tried to track down the link between Blackburn and the "anti-Muslim extremist" there's nothing on that either. It seems to be a commons debate that included an incredibly obscure (here) Indian nationalist, Tapan Ghosh. But then again, the commons had a state visit by Saudi's Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and I'm guessing Versi isn't calling Theresa May an international fugitive from justice because she consorts with a war criminal? I can find nothing on Bob Blackburn, he's a Tory so anything's possible. The second claim is a tweet by Tommy Robinson (from 2016) that Blackburn re-twittered. I can't find any link to it, and I'm damned if I'm spending a day going through Tommy Robinson's unpleasant Twitter feed.
To be honest, is this the best that Versi can come up with vis a vis hate crime, a so obscure Tory MP that he doesn't even come up on a google search retweeting something from 2016? Surely there's a lot worse?
"And again this week, Muslims across the country received “Punish a Muslim Day” letters, and four Muslim MPs received suspicious packages, the government response was extremely poor. Victoria Atkins, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for the home department, ignored questions asked by MPs and cited the security fund to protect places of worship – a fund that is currently closed." my italics
The Punish a Muslim Day letters are indeed depressing. But then what can be expected of the government in response? Well, Versi (once again) heads to twitter for his reference source, and even more amazingly the source is his own twitter account. Self referencing your own twitter feed?
So what does Versi twitteringly suggest?
"Disappointing lack of response to @YasminQureshiMP's questions on #PunishAMuslim letters
1. Why has no Minister made a speech on rise of anti-Muslim hatred?
2. What are the gvt going to do?
3. How much funding has been given to tackle each form of bigotry?"
Well, first up, evidence for a "rise of anti-Muslim hatred'? It was widely reported that there was a a fivefold increase in Islamophobic hate crimes after the Westminster terror attack, according to the London Mayor's office but these reportings tend to spike after terror events then fall again. But it's hard to track down what these Islamophobic hate crimes entailed. I'm not in any way suggesting that there isn't widespread racial hatred that is often aimed at Muslims:
"The Met police say the volume of hate crime they record as Islamophobic attacks has increased sharply in the last four years. The force recorded 343 incidents in the 12 months to March 2013, 1,109 in the 12 months to March 2016 and 1,260 in the 12 months to this March." The Guardian
As The Hope Not Hate survey found, hate crimes against Muslims (and Asian people in general) go up after terror attacks and, of course, there has been a concerted level of terror attacks in the UK for many years. That isn't in any way suggesting hate crime is permissible but that, specifically, Muslim hate crime is directly linked to terror attacks and media reportage of terror attacks (there is a correlation with real world events).
What is a hate crime? How does one measure it as Islamophobic? Obviously clear cases of verbal or physical abuse aimed specifically at Muslims because they are Muslim would be a hate crime based on their belief and not their colour/race/ethnicity. But often these are conflated. And because a hate crime is carried out on a Muslim individual that doesn't necessarily follow it was because they were a Muslim. Versi, on his twitter feed, highlights the example of "Man convicted of shooting dead two Muslim men outside a US mosque, but killings not classed as hate crime." Obviously, suggesting how can this not be an Islamophobic hate crime? Well, Muslims hanging outside a mosque is probably a common occurrence and the motive was unclear. This is America where shooting strangers is a national sport.
I don't want to look like I'm twitter stalking Versi but just in his most recent posts on Islamophobia he gives examples that seem utterly clear cut "A disabled man, Syed Ali, has been left terrified after racist vandals sprayed 'kill Muslims' on his front door." There is physical evidence of a hate crime against a Muslim but then some that are far less so:
"The Sunday Times allows bigotry in its paper again - this time (again) from Rod Liddle. He claims that "*Even* the Muslims" were upset about anti-Semitism. It is deeply disappointing how #Islamophobia passes by the editors without even a second thought."
Is that Islamophobia? After all, surveys do tend to find a higher level of anti-Semitic views among Muslim cohorts (BBC, for instance shows a 55% instance of anti-Semitic opinion among Muslims as opposed to 30% in the general population). UK Muslims more anti-Semitic than general population, poll finds. The report can be found here. The results in a colourful chart:
I'm not sticking up for Rod Liddle, who is deeply unpleasant and racist, but his "even Muslims" comment has a point in context.
Or another example of rampant Islamophobia from Versi's feed:
"Sorry you had to go through this Alisha Burnby. The bigotry that Muslim women face is real & worrying."
Versi asks "what are the government going to do?" by having his second point as "what are the government going to do?" Which is bizarre.
As to funding, well, austerity and all that. But it's important to contextualize. Hate crime is horrible but as crimes go (unless an actual physical assault) it's fairly low down on the judicial radar. I mean, women and gay people (including myself though I'm not actually gay, just appear to be to a lot of young white masculine hard tough utterly heterosexual white males) regularly get the same persecution and their persecution isn't even based on a belief. Not that I'm suggesting that that in any way makes any hate crime acceptable.
Versi sums up his conflated confused argument with:
"On Wednesday, the Muslim Council of Britain report on integration stated that “all Muslims in their full diversity … cannot and should not be treated as anything but equal citizens, and our expectations cannot be different”.
Um, so Muslims must be treated equally? So, uh, how does that work with Halal slaughter, halal food in schools, children getting time out of school for Ramadan, etc.? One can't cry "treat us equally" then expect unique laws or provisions to accommodate one's faith, that makes no sense. And if Muslims are to be treated equally as other citizens, then non Muslim citizens and British law shouldn't have to make any accommodation beyond acceptance of Muslims as individual people. As far as I'm aware, the only legal ramifications with any other social immigrant groups is Kosher slaughter in Judaic groups and acceptance of Turbans instead of helmets on motorcyclists. Both are completely mad. Am I Sikhophobic for arguing that, well tough, you can't legally ride a motorbike Mr Singh. Get over it. Or anti-Semitic because I believe ritual slaughter is barbaric (see below)?
So how do we integrate different faith groups? Alan Travis argues "A new study by the Institute for Public Policy Research on Bedford showed that a less aggressive approach can work. It shows that Bedford is well integrated, and that the most isolated groups are eastern European workers and Asian Muslim women. For them relatively small changes such as a women-only session at the local pool as a gateway to public services, or a different way of holding a parents’ evening can make a big difference."
This is a bizarre argument. First off, Bedford isn't exactly typical in that only 1.8% of the population are of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage. And while nearly 90% of Bedford spoke English as a first language, 2.5% spoke Polish, while only 0.6% spoke Urdu and Arabic isn't even marked.
Surely women only sessions don't necessarily help integration. While I'm all for women only spaces I can't see how they can be used to integrate communities if the very reason that women aren't integrating is the religion that is segregating them. It seems nonsensical. I have no idea what a "different way of holding parents' evening" would entail and Travis doesn't link it. But I hunted the IPPR report down to here:
"But for some parts of Bedford’s community, integration has been more difficult. There is some evidence that enclaves are starting to develop. Bedford can try to head off these developments – by using planning legislation to foster ethnic diversity, for example."
That doesn't sound too optimistic.
"The least integrated groups include eastern European migrant workers – particularly men who tend to socialise with others of their nationality and may be in Bedford transiently – and some groups of Asian Muslim women. Our focus groups with women from this hard-to-reach group found that household responsibilities, very low levels of confidence, traditional views of women’s roles in the family and little understanding of the options available combined to inhibit many of these women from engaging with wider Bedford society." my italics
Thus proving the point that it's disingenuous to compare Eastern European workers with other immigrant groups and, discounting Eastern European men because of their likely transient nature, that this particular issue is unique to Asian Muslim women.
The report rightly argues:
"Some have argued that these women should be compelled to integrate, and penalised if they do not; yet our research found that the most effective strategy to overcoming this lack of integration is through actions to empower these women to overcome their obstacles."
But this is surely problematic in that the very thing holding them back is the cultural beliefs that cement their own cultural spaces and the needs are inherently caused by their very cultural beliefs (or their husbands):
"Some Asian Muslim women have apparently struggled to establish even basic indicators of integration, such as learning some English or establishing connections outside the cultural group even after living in the town a long time. A range of factors combined to impede their integration.
Hostility of family members to their engagement with people outside the social group, from husbands, mothers-in-law and parents for social and cultural reasons, and from some sons on religious grounds.
Low levels of confidence impeded these women from making the steps that facilitate the integration of other migrants. Engaging with public services, going somewhere on their own, approaching authority figures or travelling to an unfamiliar part of the town were simply too intimidating.
Household and caring responsibilities reducing the time and opportunities available for integrating."
The report clarifies how women only swimming classes could help integration, which is to be applauded:
"We found evidence that sensitive adaptations that allowed women to overcome these obstacles could have a transformative impact on their integration. For example, a local swimming pool secured permission to run a women-only swimming class, which it targeted (primarily, but not exclusively) at Asian Muslim women. Over time, this swimming class reduced scepticism from hostile family members. Women’s confidence increased, and they managed to collectively organise their childcare responsibilities. Small, judicious and empowering adaptations made integration easier."
However, this does fly in the face of Versi's call that: "all Muslims in their full diversity … cannot and should not be treated as anything but equal citizens, and our expectations cannot be different."
As it's the very religious belief that holds back Muslim women from integrating and special provisions are being called for.
The IPPR report also highlights the fact that such special consideration for, specifically, Muslim women could actually make integration more complex: "Adaptations such as these can be controversial. Gender segregation, especially in order to cater to religiously conservative groups, is a contentious issue. Similarly, using compulsive strategies to compel migrants to integrate causes concern in some quarters – but when used judiciously and in ways that are empowering and not punitive, there is a place for such measures."
And as the special parent evenings, once more, it flies in the face of Versi argument to be treated equally:
"Local schools have made adaptations to make it easier for parents to come to parents’ evenings if they do not speak good English, or do not understand the British school system, by allowing parents to accompany children during the school day."
The oddest thing about the report is that it offers no quantitative or qualitative data so it's impossible to tell if it's been successful in any way.
So having completely dismissed Versi's arguments, how then can communities (and I'm singling out Muslim communities here just like the insidious Louise Casey) integrate better?
- Understanding of communities is a good start. Ignorance causes prejudice so schemes like Mosque open days is something.
- It's important to point out that many Muslims do integrate. It's probably a minority of more fundamentalist Muslims that struggle. I hate to do the "but some of my best friends are..." argument but living in a suburb of Manchester with a high Muslim population (12% at the last census, well over double the national average) I interact with Muslim men and women on every level each day and it just isn't an issue in any way just as I assume my veganism wouldn't get in the way of any 'relationship' with others. But then by the very nature of integration problems, I as a white non-Muslim male won't be interacting with those who aren't integrating.
- There needs to be more Muslim Asians represented in mainstream media, sports, culture, politics. Probably. But how that is attained is another matter.
- Cognitive dissonance doesn't help, like mainstream left leaning newspapers running with articles on "modest fashion" in The Guardian: " Generation M: how young Muslim women are driving a modest fashion revolution or The Independent: The rise of religious style tribes, androgyny and the fashion cycle has made concealing your body cool likening Islamic patriarchal dress codes to chic fashion modes. "A lot of young people use social media, and that has been the cause of the push for this fashion revolution, just like we saw with the Arab spring. Now we’re seeing that change in fashion. There are really great designers coming out from Saudi Arabia, from Malaysia …It’s only now that the west has recognised this.” Yeah, just like the Arab Spring...oh, Saudi Arabia.
- Celebrate the positives of Islamic culture, recognize the negatives.
- Probably would be a good idea to have a reformation.
- Debate, discuss, discourse. The concept of any criticism of Islam or Muslims as Islamophobic is intensely unhelpful, as Christopher Hitchens argued "stupid term — Islamophobia — has been put into circulation to try and suggest that a foul prejudice lurks behind any misgivings about Islam's infallible ‘message.’” salon: We need a progressive debate on Islam
So what be this "stupid term" Islamophobia?
A handy visual summary:
Exclusion, violence, prejudice, discrimination. Hoorah, I'm not Islamophobic. This seems very broad but any minority group will probably face these issues. But, as Versi suggests, integration is a two way street. This is particularly relevant in the areas of exclusion and discrimination and prejudice, as highlighted above in the areas of the unique needs of Muslims, faith schools and issues around women. The only clear cut issue in the visual summary is violence, which can never be condoned. However, it has to be clear that the violence is enacted on Muslims because they are Muslims and because most Muslims are from racial minorities racial abuse can easily be conflated with hatred of Muslims. Equally, criticism of Islam is conflated with hatred, under this odd umbrella term, Islamophobia.
Take a video from all round good guy, Owen Jones on Is Islam the Problem? It's a weird question posed by an unpleasant internet fellow called Daniel Bostock (most of his videos are anti- feminist, racist, white supremacist Trump supporting etc. etc.). Is Islam the problem? Surely this sentence is missing an object? The problem to/for what? Bostock's somewhat bizarre point is given a little meat by adding "It's Islam that's extreme." However, Owen Jones's answer merely conflates individual Muslims with Islam as a religion.
Owen Jones highlights the fact that Theo Padnos was kidnapped by Islamic extremists but he bears no grudge against Muslims. Padnos says "a billion and some Muslims are leading peaceful happy lives and deriving spiritual comfort and happiness from their religion. We have a tiny minority causing chaos."
Then Jones adds that he's proud to live in London because the London Mayor is Sadiq Khan, who is "someone who fought for LGBT rights, he voted for equal marriage." Jones is right that Sadiq Khan seems a lovely fellow. But rather than having set up his 'example Muslim' who is chillaxed about homosexuality, rather than logically comparing that to the general view of other Muslims he compares this to Tory MPs. Which doesn't make any logical sense. Islam is not bad because Sadiq Khan is lovely and Tory MPs are homophobic. Huh?
"So he's a guy, a Muslim, who stood up for guys like me unlike most Conservative MPs," adds Jones just to reiterate that Jones is gay, Sadiq Khan is Muslim and Khan is cool with Jones being gay but a lot of Tory MPs aren't. Apart from the obvious Islam isn't bad as a religion because I know loads of nice Muslims irrational argument this is also comparing a very liberal Muslim (it's why he's the Mayor) with very illiberal Tory MPs. It's not a reasoned argument, Owen.
As to Padnos's point, that's purely about extremist Islamic terrorism, it has nothing to say about Islam as a religious creed other than the suggestion that most Muslims live in peace together. Which is, of course, completely wrong anyway. Look at the internecine conflicts in the Middle East between Sunni and Shia, between fundamentalists and those wanting more liberal societies. Are female and gay Muslims living in peace in Saudi, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.? They're both silly arguments and play right into the hands of Alt right types like Bostock.
A far better argument against such an irrational "Is Islam the problem" question would be, no, climate change is the problem. But any religion practised in a fundamentalist way is problematic. Is Islam problematic when it comes to integration in western societies? Of course. But as Versi suggests, integration is a two way street. The integration of other cultures into one's own culture is a healthy vision of a multicultural society, think Italian in the US, Greek in Australia, Indian and Afro-Caribbean in the UK. However, these cultures were not divided by religion and that makes it far more effectively easy to integrate.
Both sides, the host culture and the immigrant culture have to collectively adapt. In the case of Islam in the UK, there should absolutely be the right to a place of worship, for instance, and those who oppose the building of Mosques are indeed blocking the path to integration. I don't see any paradox in someone choosing to be British and choosing to pray in a Mosque on a Friday. But then, it's easy for me as an Atheist because it's just as nonsensical praying in a Synagogue on a Saturday or a church on a Sunday. But frankly m'am I couldn't give a damn. Where integration becomes more problematic is special dispensations. The Anglican church at present has seven sitting clergy in the House of Lords and that's utterly wrong. It doesn't make me Christianophobic.
My own bugbear with Islam (apart from women's and gay rights) is ritual slaughter.
"The EU legislation on the killing of animals aims to minimize the pain and suffering of animals through the use of properly approved stunning methods. It applies to farmed animals." 2009 EU law
This reinforced laws in the UK from 2004.
A new document was issued in 2017 reinforcing the need for "best stunning practices" in large farm animals. Both documents highlight the need for best stunning practices "to alleviate distress and pain at time of slaughter." The best practices being electrocution and captive bolt stunning and though this is hard to regulate on small farms this practice should also be law on said small holdings, it finds.
But weirdly after 400 pages of legalese on the need to alleviate distress by good stunning practices both documents make allowances for ritual slaughter:
"Cultural traditions refer to an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action or behaviour which includes in fact the concept of something transmitted by, or acquired from, a predecessor. They contribute to fostering long-standing social links between generations. Provided that those activities do not affect the market of products of animal origin and are not motivated by production purposes, it is appropriate to exclude the killing of animals taking place during those events from the scope of this Regulation."
Thus Kosher and Halal ritual slaughter are illogically allowed, we all agree that slaughtering animals is distressful and unpleasant and we should make it as painless as possible but hey, let's ignore our whole rationale so as not to upset two minority religious groups. There's even a lengthy piece on mechanical gear to hold sheep while they bleed to death. It makes no sense.
In fact, there are numerous pieces in times of israel, The Guardian, The Tower, The Spectator that highlight the absurdity of Kosher meat, not only from the perspective of religious ritual but also from the position of animal cruelty:
"In September, more than 70 rabbis from around the world signed a declaration urging Jews to choose veganism, saying it was a contradiction to claim that products made “through a process that involves inordinate cruelty and barbarity toward animal life can truly be considered kosher in our world”.
“The garden of Eden, which was the ideal society, was a vegetarian society. Adam and Eve were vegans,” Rabbi David Rosen, former chief rabbi of Ireland, said in the statement." Guardian
The statement can be viewed at the rabbinic statement.
“Judaism’s way of life, its dietary practices, are designed to ennoble the human spirit. It is therefore a contradiction in terms to claim that products that come through a process that involves inordinate cruelty and barbarity toward animal life can truly be considered kosher in our world. In our world today, it is precisely a plant-based diet that is truly consonant with the most sublime teachings of Judaism and of the highest aspirations of our heritage.”
Rabbi David Rosen, Former Chief Rabbi of Ireland
Go Rabbi Rosen.
That's the thing about many beliefs, they may not chime with the general population but they don't impinge on integration. Being vegan, being atheist, even being a nihilist. That's because you don't need to change or adapt laws for these, we're all born vegan, atheist nihilists then encultured into believing things, eating meat and praying to imaginary sky gods.
Back finally to Islamophobia and a good piece in the New Humanist by Piers Benn On islamophobia-phobia. The fear of Islamophobia.
Benn argues:
"'Islamophobia' is a negatively loaded word. Not many people would admit to being Islamophobic, any more than they would admit to being homophobic. Indeed, there is an interesting parallel between the two concepts. Although 'homophobia' really means fear of homosexuals, it is now widely used to refer to any criticism of homosexuality. Many who use the word appear oblivious to the distinction between the fear (or hatred) of homosexual individuals, and disapproval of homosexual behaviour. Of course, one might argue that language evolves and words change their meaning. But this misses the point. There is a real distinction to be made here, which needs to be reflected in language. With Islamophobia, the same applies. It is essential to distinguish criticism of Islam both from fear of Islam, and from fear, hatred or contempt for Muslims. But all too often, moral criticism of Muslim practices, or scepticism about doctrines, is dismissed as Islamophobic."
Absolutely. I fear Islam. Hate is too stronger word to describe the unpleasant feelings I get on reading Koranic text, more just, what do you expect? Humans are unpleasant. I also feel saddened by anyone living their life by ancient texts based on supernatural deities and the word of prophets. But I don't fear or hate any individual Muslim, that's as crazy as fear of or hating Jews because you find the Old Testament deeply offensive on every level. And as Benn suggests, any criticism of Islam itself as a religious practice is automatically deemed Islamophobic. Even Hitchens quote about Islamophobia has been criticized because he suggests it's a "stupid term." It is. Benn asks:
"What would be a rational response to this? There are at least two strategies. One, as just suggested, is to deny any necessary connection between criticism of Islam on the one hand, and fear of Islam or contempt for Muslims, on the other. Another, more direct one would be to ask squarely whether Islamophobia, understood as fear of Islam, is wrong after all. After all, if Islam really does advocate jihad to achieve world domination, if it really does say that the testimony of a woman in court is worth half that of a man, and that Muslims should not befriend Jews or Christians, then why wouldn't fear or other negative reactions be entirely reasonable?"
I'm not sure the Q'ran advocates Jihad for world domination but by gum it advocates carrying out violence on unbelievers on a grand scale. It repeats that men are worth more than women many times The only debatable point is by what degree. And befriending Jews and Christians makes you one of them and no friend of Allah. It's hard to be tolerant of a religion that is so intolerant (as is Christianity and Judaism to lesser degrees).
"The usual counter-argument is to deny the factual accuracy of these claims about Islamic doctrine and practice. Islamophobia is said to manifest itself in ignorant and prejudiced ideas of what 'true' Islam really teaches. And it is here that the debate gets interesting, and leads to the second worry I mentioned, about public and media indifference to solid issues of truth and justification in religious matters."
It's a classic reactionary debating tactic, you don't understand my culture. Much like the whole Islam is a religion of peace debate (there are numerous arguments around it, just pop it in a search engine). I struggled through some of the Q'ran. I know I should've persevered but honestly, it's the most tedious book on Earth (and I've read Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children and the Old and New Testament (well I skimmed the 'and David begat..." section). Page after page of how great Allah is and violence to be metered out on non-believers and the interminable internecine factional fighting over things that only a scholar of mid-100s AD Persia could find interesting, the obvious cribbed stories from the Old Testament reshaped into something somehow even more tedious. As Benn argues though, unlike Christianity and Judaism which mostly now sees the Bible as symbolic morality tales:
"The most fundamental problem is that of the claimed status of the Koran as the infallible, revealed word of God. All Muslims are committed to this claim, although there are disputes about interpretation and emphasis, just as there are about any other sacred book. The Koran has frightening things to say about the fate of those who do not believe in God and the Last Day, and there is considerable stress on hell: God is 'stern in retribution'.
Suppose one asks the simple questions: what grounds are there for believing that the Koran is an authentic revelation? How likely is it, that if there were a God with an extremely important message to deliver to humanity, he would have chosen to reveal it to one man, in the way he is said to have done to Mohammed? Why not, indeed, reveal it to a large number of people, who could then compare their revelations and agree on their content? And how easily could Mohammed's belief that he was a prophet have arisen, if he was not, in fact, a recipient of divine revelations? There is no obvious difficulty about this; apart from anything else, he is far from unique in believing himself the recipient of special revelations. Think of Joseph Smith or Sun Myung Moon."
All this might seem moot points when discussing real everyday issues like integration. However, if it were true that Muslims really believe this nonsense as divine truth then how could it not be a barrier to integration? I mean, just go online and randomly select a few random verses and shake your head in wonder that anyone could use the book as their guide to how to live a full and rich life. Of course, the same can be said for the Old and New Testament but who believes that as the literal word of Gawd. Absolute gibberish.
Benn argues: "Many who fear the rise of Islamophobia veer away from critical analysis of Islamic claims and practices, perhaps for fear of what they might find. They denounce critical scrutiny of Islam as somehow impolite, or ignorant of the religion's true nature. This is not intellectually or morally healthy. The real lesson of tolerance is that disputes should be settled by reasoned dialogue rather than abuse or violence, and that we should always accept that we may have much to learn from people whose beliefs initially appear strange. But these virtues are a far cry from the sentimental pretence that all claims to religious truth are somehow 'equal', or that critical scrutiny of Islam (or any belief system) is ignorant, prejudiced, or 'phobic'. By all means let us be well-informed about Islam, but let us not assume that once we are, we shall altogether like what we find."
So, my initial point was to critique Miqdaad Versi's claims in his piece in the Guardian proclaiming "Don’t make Muslims solely responsible for integration in the UK." I seem to have strayed but not really as these are all key points in discussing Islamophobia, Islam, being Muslim in the UK, being a British Muslim and how one integrates Britishness with Islam. Most Muslims, in the surveys mentioned, are proud to be British (can't say I am though), and believe they integrate well, while there is a disconnect with the perception of non-Muslim British:
"The vast majority of people (70%) in 2001 felt that British Muslims had assimilated well, this figure was reversed by 2006 where 74% argued they need to do more. Consistently, since 2006, polling has produced data concluding that one in four or one in five people in the UK hold strongly negative perceptions of Islam and Muslims, specifically when asked about integration and associations with violence." (from HopenotHate)
But then the Hope Not Hate survey of tribal responses conflates "Immigration" "multiculturalism" and attitudes towards Islam and towards Muslims. These are all separate issues yet treated as one.
Versi argues that we shouldn't treat Muslim immigrants any differently to others and seems to suggest that because we do therein lies many of the difficulties with integration. I've tried to argue that Muslim immigrants are different to other groups of immigrants precisely because of the Islamic faith, precisely because of the special needs, attitudes and politics, the cultural baggage, that comes with being Muslim. To deny that there is a difference between Muslim immigrants and other faiths or immigrant groups is part of the problem holding back integration. To simply cry Islamophobia every time some raises these special needs whilst at the same time proclaiming that Muslim immigrants need to be treated equally yet also need special laws or measures to integrate is utterly illogical.
Owen Jones is right to point to Sadiq Khan as a progressive figurehead for first generation (born in the UK) Muslim immigrants. His views on women and homosexuality, for instance, are more progressive, as Jones points out, than many non-Muslims on the right. But Khan is a practicing Muslim and I'm bewildered as to how he can be both a feminist and a practicing Muslim. I mean, it's great and a great step forward to have a progressive Muslim mayor but...uh which bits of the Q'ran does he live by? To be fair, there are lots of lovely practising Christians and Jews but they tend to pretty much ignore 99.9% of their text and zoom in on "Jesus loves us all" and "God really loves us all." So I guess, over time, generations of Muslims in the UK will inevitably begin to selectively read their life manual, as any text written circa 700AD obviously conflicts with modern post enlightenment values. But the rise in Muslim faith schools, the seeming rise in Muslim women not speaking English and the consequent isolation, the continuing almost complete lack of Muslims in our public life, the lopsided criticism of any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia, the call for equality whilst still expecting positive-discriminatory laws will inevitably hold back integration. Versi is right in talking about integration being a two way street but his use of tired arguments (what about the Polish, what about ex pat Brits in Spain?) and his criticism of Casey's review because it singles out Muslim integration as problematic is counter-productive.
A handy visual summary:
Exclusion, violence, prejudice, discrimination. Hoorah, I'm not Islamophobic. This seems very broad but any minority group will probably face these issues. But, as Versi suggests, integration is a two way street. This is particularly relevant in the areas of exclusion and discrimination and prejudice, as highlighted above in the areas of the unique needs of Muslims, faith schools and issues around women. The only clear cut issue in the visual summary is violence, which can never be condoned. However, it has to be clear that the violence is enacted on Muslims because they are Muslims and because most Muslims are from racial minorities racial abuse can easily be conflated with hatred of Muslims. Equally, criticism of Islam is conflated with hatred, under this odd umbrella term, Islamophobia.
Take a video from all round good guy, Owen Jones on Is Islam the Problem? It's a weird question posed by an unpleasant internet fellow called Daniel Bostock (most of his videos are anti- feminist, racist, white supremacist Trump supporting etc. etc.). Is Islam the problem? Surely this sentence is missing an object? The problem to/for what? Bostock's somewhat bizarre point is given a little meat by adding "It's Islam that's extreme." However, Owen Jones's answer merely conflates individual Muslims with Islam as a religion.
Owen Jones highlights the fact that Theo Padnos was kidnapped by Islamic extremists but he bears no grudge against Muslims. Padnos says "a billion and some Muslims are leading peaceful happy lives and deriving spiritual comfort and happiness from their religion. We have a tiny minority causing chaos."
Then Jones adds that he's proud to live in London because the London Mayor is Sadiq Khan, who is "someone who fought for LGBT rights, he voted for equal marriage." Jones is right that Sadiq Khan seems a lovely fellow. But rather than having set up his 'example Muslim' who is chillaxed about homosexuality, rather than logically comparing that to the general view of other Muslims he compares this to Tory MPs. Which doesn't make any logical sense. Islam is not bad because Sadiq Khan is lovely and Tory MPs are homophobic. Huh?
"So he's a guy, a Muslim, who stood up for guys like me unlike most Conservative MPs," adds Jones just to reiterate that Jones is gay, Sadiq Khan is Muslim and Khan is cool with Jones being gay but a lot of Tory MPs aren't. Apart from the obvious Islam isn't bad as a religion because I know loads of nice Muslims irrational argument this is also comparing a very liberal Muslim (it's why he's the Mayor) with very illiberal Tory MPs. It's not a reasoned argument, Owen.
As to Padnos's point, that's purely about extremist Islamic terrorism, it has nothing to say about Islam as a religious creed other than the suggestion that most Muslims live in peace together. Which is, of course, completely wrong anyway. Look at the internecine conflicts in the Middle East between Sunni and Shia, between fundamentalists and those wanting more liberal societies. Are female and gay Muslims living in peace in Saudi, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.? They're both silly arguments and play right into the hands of Alt right types like Bostock.
A far better argument against such an irrational "Is Islam the problem" question would be, no, climate change is the problem. But any religion practised in a fundamentalist way is problematic. Is Islam problematic when it comes to integration in western societies? Of course. But as Versi suggests, integration is a two way street. The integration of other cultures into one's own culture is a healthy vision of a multicultural society, think Italian in the US, Greek in Australia, Indian and Afro-Caribbean in the UK. However, these cultures were not divided by religion and that makes it far more effectively easy to integrate.
Both sides, the host culture and the immigrant culture have to collectively adapt. In the case of Islam in the UK, there should absolutely be the right to a place of worship, for instance, and those who oppose the building of Mosques are indeed blocking the path to integration. I don't see any paradox in someone choosing to be British and choosing to pray in a Mosque on a Friday. But then, it's easy for me as an Atheist because it's just as nonsensical praying in a Synagogue on a Saturday or a church on a Sunday. But frankly m'am I couldn't give a damn. Where integration becomes more problematic is special dispensations. The Anglican church at present has seven sitting clergy in the House of Lords and that's utterly wrong. It doesn't make me Christianophobic.
My own bugbear with Islam (apart from women's and gay rights) is ritual slaughter.
"The EU legislation on the killing of animals aims to minimize the pain and suffering of animals through the use of properly approved stunning methods. It applies to farmed animals." 2009 EU law
This reinforced laws in the UK from 2004.
A new document was issued in 2017 reinforcing the need for "best stunning practices" in large farm animals. Both documents highlight the need for best stunning practices "to alleviate distress and pain at time of slaughter." The best practices being electrocution and captive bolt stunning and though this is hard to regulate on small farms this practice should also be law on said small holdings, it finds.
But weirdly after 400 pages of legalese on the need to alleviate distress by good stunning practices both documents make allowances for ritual slaughter:
"Cultural traditions refer to an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action or behaviour which includes in fact the concept of something transmitted by, or acquired from, a predecessor. They contribute to fostering long-standing social links between generations. Provided that those activities do not affect the market of products of animal origin and are not motivated by production purposes, it is appropriate to exclude the killing of animals taking place during those events from the scope of this Regulation."
Thus Kosher and Halal ritual slaughter are illogically allowed, we all agree that slaughtering animals is distressful and unpleasant and we should make it as painless as possible but hey, let's ignore our whole rationale so as not to upset two minority religious groups. There's even a lengthy piece on mechanical gear to hold sheep while they bleed to death. It makes no sense.
In fact, there are numerous pieces in times of israel, The Guardian, The Tower, The Spectator that highlight the absurdity of Kosher meat, not only from the perspective of religious ritual but also from the position of animal cruelty:
"In September, more than 70 rabbis from around the world signed a declaration urging Jews to choose veganism, saying it was a contradiction to claim that products made “through a process that involves inordinate cruelty and barbarity toward animal life can truly be considered kosher in our world”.
“The garden of Eden, which was the ideal society, was a vegetarian society. Adam and Eve were vegans,” Rabbi David Rosen, former chief rabbi of Ireland, said in the statement." Guardian
The statement can be viewed at the rabbinic statement.
“Judaism’s way of life, its dietary practices, are designed to ennoble the human spirit. It is therefore a contradiction in terms to claim that products that come through a process that involves inordinate cruelty and barbarity toward animal life can truly be considered kosher in our world. In our world today, it is precisely a plant-based diet that is truly consonant with the most sublime teachings of Judaism and of the highest aspirations of our heritage.”
Rabbi David Rosen, Former Chief Rabbi of Ireland
Go Rabbi Rosen.
That's the thing about many beliefs, they may not chime with the general population but they don't impinge on integration. Being vegan, being atheist, even being a nihilist. That's because you don't need to change or adapt laws for these, we're all born vegan, atheist nihilists then encultured into believing things, eating meat and praying to imaginary sky gods.
Back finally to Islamophobia and a good piece in the New Humanist by Piers Benn On islamophobia-phobia. The fear of Islamophobia.
Benn argues:
"'Islamophobia' is a negatively loaded word. Not many people would admit to being Islamophobic, any more than they would admit to being homophobic. Indeed, there is an interesting parallel between the two concepts. Although 'homophobia' really means fear of homosexuals, it is now widely used to refer to any criticism of homosexuality. Many who use the word appear oblivious to the distinction between the fear (or hatred) of homosexual individuals, and disapproval of homosexual behaviour. Of course, one might argue that language evolves and words change their meaning. But this misses the point. There is a real distinction to be made here, which needs to be reflected in language. With Islamophobia, the same applies. It is essential to distinguish criticism of Islam both from fear of Islam, and from fear, hatred or contempt for Muslims. But all too often, moral criticism of Muslim practices, or scepticism about doctrines, is dismissed as Islamophobic."
Absolutely. I fear Islam. Hate is too stronger word to describe the unpleasant feelings I get on reading Koranic text, more just, what do you expect? Humans are unpleasant. I also feel saddened by anyone living their life by ancient texts based on supernatural deities and the word of prophets. But I don't fear or hate any individual Muslim, that's as crazy as fear of or hating Jews because you find the Old Testament deeply offensive on every level. And as Benn suggests, any criticism of Islam itself as a religious practice is automatically deemed Islamophobic. Even Hitchens quote about Islamophobia has been criticized because he suggests it's a "stupid term." It is. Benn asks:
"What would be a rational response to this? There are at least two strategies. One, as just suggested, is to deny any necessary connection between criticism of Islam on the one hand, and fear of Islam or contempt for Muslims, on the other. Another, more direct one would be to ask squarely whether Islamophobia, understood as fear of Islam, is wrong after all. After all, if Islam really does advocate jihad to achieve world domination, if it really does say that the testimony of a woman in court is worth half that of a man, and that Muslims should not befriend Jews or Christians, then why wouldn't fear or other negative reactions be entirely reasonable?"
I'm not sure the Q'ran advocates Jihad for world domination but by gum it advocates carrying out violence on unbelievers on a grand scale. It repeats that men are worth more than women many times The only debatable point is by what degree. And befriending Jews and Christians makes you one of them and no friend of Allah. It's hard to be tolerant of a religion that is so intolerant (as is Christianity and Judaism to lesser degrees).
"The usual counter-argument is to deny the factual accuracy of these claims about Islamic doctrine and practice. Islamophobia is said to manifest itself in ignorant and prejudiced ideas of what 'true' Islam really teaches. And it is here that the debate gets interesting, and leads to the second worry I mentioned, about public and media indifference to solid issues of truth and justification in religious matters."
It's a classic reactionary debating tactic, you don't understand my culture. Much like the whole Islam is a religion of peace debate (there are numerous arguments around it, just pop it in a search engine). I struggled through some of the Q'ran. I know I should've persevered but honestly, it's the most tedious book on Earth (and I've read Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children and the Old and New Testament (well I skimmed the 'and David begat..." section). Page after page of how great Allah is and violence to be metered out on non-believers and the interminable internecine factional fighting over things that only a scholar of mid-100s AD Persia could find interesting, the obvious cribbed stories from the Old Testament reshaped into something somehow even more tedious. As Benn argues though, unlike Christianity and Judaism which mostly now sees the Bible as symbolic morality tales:
"The most fundamental problem is that of the claimed status of the Koran as the infallible, revealed word of God. All Muslims are committed to this claim, although there are disputes about interpretation and emphasis, just as there are about any other sacred book. The Koran has frightening things to say about the fate of those who do not believe in God and the Last Day, and there is considerable stress on hell: God is 'stern in retribution'.
Suppose one asks the simple questions: what grounds are there for believing that the Koran is an authentic revelation? How likely is it, that if there were a God with an extremely important message to deliver to humanity, he would have chosen to reveal it to one man, in the way he is said to have done to Mohammed? Why not, indeed, reveal it to a large number of people, who could then compare their revelations and agree on their content? And how easily could Mohammed's belief that he was a prophet have arisen, if he was not, in fact, a recipient of divine revelations? There is no obvious difficulty about this; apart from anything else, he is far from unique in believing himself the recipient of special revelations. Think of Joseph Smith or Sun Myung Moon."
All this might seem moot points when discussing real everyday issues like integration. However, if it were true that Muslims really believe this nonsense as divine truth then how could it not be a barrier to integration? I mean, just go online and randomly select a few random verses and shake your head in wonder that anyone could use the book as their guide to how to live a full and rich life. Of course, the same can be said for the Old and New Testament but who believes that as the literal word of Gawd. Absolute gibberish.
Benn argues: "Many who fear the rise of Islamophobia veer away from critical analysis of Islamic claims and practices, perhaps for fear of what they might find. They denounce critical scrutiny of Islam as somehow impolite, or ignorant of the religion's true nature. This is not intellectually or morally healthy. The real lesson of tolerance is that disputes should be settled by reasoned dialogue rather than abuse or violence, and that we should always accept that we may have much to learn from people whose beliefs initially appear strange. But these virtues are a far cry from the sentimental pretence that all claims to religious truth are somehow 'equal', or that critical scrutiny of Islam (or any belief system) is ignorant, prejudiced, or 'phobic'. By all means let us be well-informed about Islam, but let us not assume that once we are, we shall altogether like what we find."
So, my initial point was to critique Miqdaad Versi's claims in his piece in the Guardian proclaiming "Don’t make Muslims solely responsible for integration in the UK." I seem to have strayed but not really as these are all key points in discussing Islamophobia, Islam, being Muslim in the UK, being a British Muslim and how one integrates Britishness with Islam. Most Muslims, in the surveys mentioned, are proud to be British (can't say I am though), and believe they integrate well, while there is a disconnect with the perception of non-Muslim British:
"The vast majority of people (70%) in 2001 felt that British Muslims had assimilated well, this figure was reversed by 2006 where 74% argued they need to do more. Consistently, since 2006, polling has produced data concluding that one in four or one in five people in the UK hold strongly negative perceptions of Islam and Muslims, specifically when asked about integration and associations with violence." (from HopenotHate)
But then the Hope Not Hate survey of tribal responses conflates "Immigration" "multiculturalism" and attitudes towards Islam and towards Muslims. These are all separate issues yet treated as one.
Versi argues that we shouldn't treat Muslim immigrants any differently to others and seems to suggest that because we do therein lies many of the difficulties with integration. I've tried to argue that Muslim immigrants are different to other groups of immigrants precisely because of the Islamic faith, precisely because of the special needs, attitudes and politics, the cultural baggage, that comes with being Muslim. To deny that there is a difference between Muslim immigrants and other faiths or immigrant groups is part of the problem holding back integration. To simply cry Islamophobia every time some raises these special needs whilst at the same time proclaiming that Muslim immigrants need to be treated equally yet also need special laws or measures to integrate is utterly illogical.
Owen Jones is right to point to Sadiq Khan as a progressive figurehead for first generation (born in the UK) Muslim immigrants. His views on women and homosexuality, for instance, are more progressive, as Jones points out, than many non-Muslims on the right. But Khan is a practicing Muslim and I'm bewildered as to how he can be both a feminist and a practicing Muslim. I mean, it's great and a great step forward to have a progressive Muslim mayor but...uh which bits of the Q'ran does he live by? To be fair, there are lots of lovely practising Christians and Jews but they tend to pretty much ignore 99.9% of their text and zoom in on "Jesus loves us all" and "God really loves us all." So I guess, over time, generations of Muslims in the UK will inevitably begin to selectively read their life manual, as any text written circa 700AD obviously conflicts with modern post enlightenment values. But the rise in Muslim faith schools, the seeming rise in Muslim women not speaking English and the consequent isolation, the continuing almost complete lack of Muslims in our public life, the lopsided criticism of any criticism of Islam as Islamophobia, the call for equality whilst still expecting positive-discriminatory laws will inevitably hold back integration. Versi is right in talking about integration being a two way street but his use of tired arguments (what about the Polish, what about ex pat Brits in Spain?) and his criticism of Casey's review because it singles out Muslim integration as problematic is counter-productive.
Comments
Post a Comment