Muslims in the UK: beyond the hype

[Violet_Crumble]

Jonathan Githens-Mazer and Robert Lambert
guardian.co.uk,
Thursday 28 January 2010 13.00 GMT

Today, we are proud to launch the European Muslim Research Centre (EMRC) at the University of Exeter. We hope that the EMRC will be part of a wider process of voices and perspectives which are too often being ignored, or buried under a tide of negative portrayals of Muslim communities and Islam by vociferous sections of the media and populist politicians.

What good is an academic centre on these kinds of issues? The EMRC has taken a first step towards highlighting problems which Muslims are facing on a daily basis. We've looked at cases like that of Yasir Abdelmouttalib. Six years ago Yasir, a young Moroccan, was nearly killed while waiting to take a bus from Willesden to Regent's Park in London. Dressed in traditional Islamic white robes to go to his Friday prayers, this young PhD student was minding his own business, when he was set upon by a gang. After a "barrage of spitting", the gang attacked him and one gang member beat his head with a street broom so badly that his brain was dislodged and his skull had multiple fractures. Yasir was left in a coma for three months.

What had Yasir done to deserve these injuries? He had no political cause. He wasn't protesting, he wasn't trying to make any point in wider society. He was a young man, waiting for a bus so he could pray. So what made it OK to beat a man's brains out for no good reason?

Earlier this month Terence Gavan, a former BNP member, was convicted of manufacturing a huge array of firearms and explosives, ranging from nail-bombs and machine guns to a rocket launcher. Gavan claimed that he had a "fascination with things that go bang", but others highlight that he felt he had to defend his fellow countrymen fighting Muslims in foreign lands. Gavan wasn't on the counter-terrorist radar – the spotlight of attention wasn't focused on him, but on Muslims as a threat to Britain, rather than British threats to Muslims.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/28/muslims-media-hate-crimes

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. K & R

[snagglepuss]

2. I'm not impressed and rather suspicious. This sounds like a carefully constructed

Saudi funded think tank. This is from first impressions and I will wait to hear what Tarek Fatah says about it. If you aren't familiar with Tarek, he is an outspoken, progressive Canadian-Pakistani writer and member of the Canadian Muslim Congress. In a National Post article "Montreal welcomes an Islamist extremist in sheep's clothing" Tarek cautions those who believe Tariq Ramandan is a moderate. Tarek says Ramadan is far from moderate but that he is part of a movement to present a sophisticated image of radical Islam to the West.


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/05/tarek-fatah-banned-in-canada.aspx#ixzz0dvLWAO5u



Tarek's comments about Ramadan came to mind when I reviewed the EMRC site and read "We reject, as fundamentally flawed, the position currently held by too many commentators: that European Muslims, Islam and strict adherence to Islam poses a threat to the safety, cohesion and well being of communities and countries in Europe.

snip

Moreover, we do not accept that Islamically inspired political thought or politics pose inherent threats to the West. In our experience radical Muslim leaders have often played valuable and undervalued roles in support of the values shared by fellow citizens of different faiths and no faith. Just as radical Christians interpret the New Testament as providing a positive framework for their public, political activity so too do many contemporary Muslims regard Islam as a basis for positive political engagement with national and local political institutions.



The comments in bold are phrases I find suspiciously vague and very concerning. For instance the remark that "radical Christian groups" play a positive role. Exactly which radical Christian group? Is this a reference to right wing US fundies like Opus Dei or Pat Robertson? Radical Christian groups playing a positive role? They have got to be kidding, exactly what positive role have "radical Christian groups" played?


Another vague phrase is "strict adherence to Islam". Is this a reference of groups demanding Sharia law? Is this a reference to Wahhabism which as Tarek Fatah cautions is being funded worldwide by the Saudis.



I also find it curious that the staff are both Jews. It certainly is convenient for PR purposes but it seems fishy.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. I'm not at all surprised given the posts I've read from you about Muslims in the past...

Yep, something that is out there to try to dispel the negative perception that European Muslims pose a threat to society has to be a front for some bunch of Muslims who pose a threat to society. I don't know what a 'carefully constructed Saudi think-tank is supposed to sound like, and kinb of suspect any group that exists to speak up about discrimination against Muslims is going to be labelled the same way.

I've never heard of the person yr waiting to hear from, and don't know the person he's talking about either. Neither of them have got anything to do with the OP anyway...

I don't find it curious at all that any staff members would be Jewish. I'm not at all sure why you seem to have an issue with them being Jewish...

Just out of curiousity, could you recommend an organisation that's working to dispel the negative stereotypes of European Muslims? I'd be interested to know if you consider any at all to be commendable, or whether they all sound like carefully constructed Saudi think-tanks...

[snagglepuss]

5. Spare the accusations. Show me one post where I have denigrated Muslims

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Talk about jumping to conclusions. Show me one post where I accused you of denigrating Muslims...

Or even better still, focus on what I asked you in my previous post and tell me if there are any organisations of the kind I mentioned that you would recommend. I'm also curious to know what yr problem is with any member of the staff being Jewish. I really didn't understand where you were coming from with that comment.

btw, you don't remember me, do you? I was the person who stuck up for you in a thread where others were concerned about the tone of yr posts when it came to Muslims....

[snagglepuss]

7. Your remark "given the posts I've read from you about Muslims

in the past" speaks volumes as it insinuates that I have bias against Muslims. The only bias I have is a bias against all religious fundamentalism and fanaticism which includes Wahabism. FTR I group Zionists in with fanatics.

As for which organization I'd recommend, one would be the British Muslims for Secular Democracy. They, unlike EMRC, state that their aim is to address Islamophobia and to "raise awareness within British Muslims and the wider public, of democracy particularly ‘secular democracy’ helping to contribute to a shared vision of citizenship (the separation of faith and state, so faiths exert no undue influence on policies and there is a shared public space)."


BMSD unequivocally affirms secular democracy and separation of Church and State. They do not make vague unsupported statements such as "Christian radicals make positive contributions" as far as I am concerned religious radicals of all stripes have been creating problems not solving them so I'm not impressed that EMRC lauds religious radicals. I am also not impressed that EMRC does not state the importance of the separation of Church and State, nor affirm freedom of speech. (The home page has a photo of women holding placards about the Danish cartoons but there isn't a comment as to whether EMRC supports free speech across the board or believes that religious sensitives need to be accommodated.)

As I stated in my previous post, but which you have clearly chosen to ignore, these are my first impressions and I don't intend to form an opinion until I hear more about this organization from sources I trust such as Tarek Fatah the author of "Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State" and the founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress which supports Gay rights, the separation of religion and state, and a "liberal, progressive form" of Islam.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Again you are reading into to what I have stated to suit yourself.

btw, there's a difference between yr first accusation that I claimed you denigrate Muslims and this second one that I insinuate you have a bias against Muslims. That's the beauty of reading whatever you like into what someone else says. You can just keep on changing it. When it comes to the question of whether or not someone has a bias, I think their words speak for themselves and don't need someone like me to add to them :)


As for which organization I'd recommend, one would be the British Muslims for Secular Democracy. They, unlike EMRC, state that their aim is to address Islamophobia and to "raise awareness within British Muslims and the wider public, of democracy particularly ‘secular democracy’ helping to contribute to a shared vision of citizenship (the separation of faith and state, so faiths exert no undue influence on policies and there is a shared public space)."

I tracked down that site and will take a close look at it later, but I have a question for you. You appear to think it's very important that awareness is raised with British Muslims of 'secular democracy'. Are you of the belief that democracy, especially a secular one is an alien thing to British Muslims?


No, seeing as how I actually commented in the post yr replying to that I don't know who that person is yr waiting to get the red or green light from, and I don't know that person he was criticising and didn't see what it had to do with the OP, it's a bit of a massive stretch to accuse me of ignoring it.

One last question - Have you heard of critics of Islam such as Wafa Sultan and Noni Darwish? If so, what's yr opinion of them? Do you think what they have to say is valid or does it cross the line?

On a side note - While there are some Zionists who are fanatics, being a Zionist doesn't make someone a fanatic. Zionism is a belief in Israel as a Jewish homeland, and seeing I believe that, I'm a Zionist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. I can't see where you get the Saudi connection from at all

and I'm not absolutely sure about the 2 academics being Jewish, either - one mentions Irish and Jewish grandparents (but for him, the Irish side seems more important), and the other that his grandfather, like him in the Metropolitan Police, saw Jews and Irish being discriminated against in London.

The Centre is a newly formed one at a respected university. Their first paper has a foreword by Peter Oborne - a political journalist who has a fairly good track record on openness and freedom of speech. I'd suggest that a radical Christian group that looks to the New Testament would be something like Martin Luther King - New rather than Old Testament being the point here (The OT being Pat Robertson's preferred reading). 'Strict adherence to Islam' is a phrase you seem to want to read something special into, but I can't see why.

Their paper seems to be an analysis of anti-Muslim acts in the present day in London.I can't see anything in it about a certain form of Islam, and indeed since neither of the writers are themselves Muslim as far as we can tell, it's hard to see this as being in favour of Islam as a whole, let alone sharia. It is, however, their area of expertise, both in their academic and police work. They seems firmly anti-violence, which can only be a Good Thing.

[snagglepuss]

10. As I had stated these are first impressions. At first glance I am not impressed

I am concerned with their vague, unsupported statement about the value radical Christians and Muslims bring to society. As I stated above, religious fundies and fanatics IMO create problems not solutions. Why the lack of candor? My first impression is that this is a PR campaign, but its hard to know since I haven't been able to find the source of funding which is also puzzling. Is it private or government?


I am puzzled that EMRC does not clearly state its position on key issues, such as,

1. Does EMRC accept the principles of free speech, free expression and the right to publish are essential to a democratic society?

2. Does EMRC believe that religions and/or religious figures should in the future be protected by laws that will criminalise any person that mocks, insults, criticises or even just represents figures or abstract principles from a religion, and specifically from the religion of Islam?

3. Where does EMRC stand on the murder of Theo van Gogh, the attempted murder of Kurt Westergaard, and the threats against the lives of Salman Rushdie, Aysaan Hirsi Ali, and other writers, politicians and journalists who have made critical comments or representations of the Islamic faith?



Because I harbour a suspicion that EMRC isn't totally 'kosher', that its aim spin doctoring rather than serious research, I could not help but be struck by the fact that having jews prominently on board makes for good PR, the same kind of PR that put Steele at the helm of the GOP. Was that move by the repugs just coinicidence? It's curious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. It's a research centre, at a university

You seem to want it to have positions and stances, and you complain that it doesn't. Then you turn round and say that you think it's spin doctoring (ie something you'd get from a body with positions and stances) rather than serious research.

How about taking the title 'Research Centre' at face value, and not telling it to take positions?

[snagglepuss]

13. So you think that a "research centre" is credible after it refers to

Salman Rushdie as an Islamophobe?

As for its position. I don't understand your remark about not expecting EMRC to take a position because it has stated a position which is extremely narrow.

"We reject, as fundamentally flawed, the position currently held by too many commentators: that European Muslims, Islam and strict adherence to Islam poses a threat to the safety, cohesion and well being of communities and countries in Europe.... Moreover, we do not accept that Islamically inspired political thought or politics pose inherent threats to the West. In our experience radical Muslim leaders have often played valuable and undervalued roles in support of the values shared by fellow citizens of different faiths and no faith. Just as radical Christians interpret the New Testament as providing a positive framework for their public, political activity so too do many contemporary Muslims regard Islam as a basis for positive political engagement with national and local political institutions."

How would you react if an American university set up a centre whose stated position is that radical Christian groups adhering to a strict interpretation of the Bible make positive contributions to America? Personally I think it would be crap if a centre was set to validate such groups as Focus on the Family.



The following are some informed comments from CIF following an article on EMRC in the Guardian -

Sarkar -

For those who think that those questioning the agenda of this EMRC have to be Islamophobes or (to judge by Imogen's extraordinarily historically ignorant comments), budding Nazis, I'd like to make one thing clear.

"Countering negative images of Muslims" in the media is not necessarily a wrong or ignoble or useless thing to do, nor is it wrong or sinister to accept money from Islamic organisations with a particular agenda to do it...even if some may point out that this involves it in possible contradictions...

But this is work for an NGO. It should not be carried out by a dedicated centre at a university. This is a matter of academic principle. For example, I personally think single parents have a tough time and get a bad press. But, and it is a big but, I do not think it would be kosher to set up a Research Institute on Single Parenthood at some university, which was specifically committed in advance to "showing" the purely positive contributions of single parenthood to society. If this happened, one would be justified in fearing that e.g. academics producing studies with a critical element over single parenthood would not be welcome, and so an ideological agenda would be built into the work of the institute...and if partial funding and patronage came from individuals or bodies linked to e.g. organisations explicitly dedicated to pushing single parenthood as the best form of parenthood, one's fears would increase!

Academic departments and institutes should be as far as reasonably possible free of intrinsic ideological agendas, however "nice" these may sound to the Imogens of this world. Individual academics within them then have academic freedom to argue what they will - though if their work is academically hopelessly bad, or breaks laws or causes public scandal, they may be out on their ear...A Centre for Islamic Studies should be perfectly able to accommodate both a Bernard Lewis and a Tariq Ramadan...THAT, indeed, would make it a shit hot interesting Centre for Islamic Studies....

Of course, it will be objected that in practice academic centres and departments do have ideological profiles (even natural science ones), because senior staff tend to appoint younger staff who take whatever their side is in various arguments in their field...But to actually institutionalise this and give it the seal of university approval and academic objectivity, is disastrous. And all too much of a risk in these days when competition for academic funding and the search for private sponsors leads to a proliferation of mini-centres touting trendy directions of research with an attraction for partisan sponsors and possible "media" interest...

In the prescribed manner of academics desperate for funds and media interest, the authors of this article ludicrously melodramatise the "need" for a special centre to put right public views of Muslims...As if there was anything new or dead daring about academic studies dealing with discrimination against the "other", toxic Western attitudes, the wicked constructions of popular culture and the press etc etc etc...There is an enormous market for this kind of production - survey, study, project....and a vast number of academics or NGO researchers supplying the market...In that sense, the new centre is dreadfully "trend-following" rather than remotely ground breaking.



Aelwyd-

There isn't much that universities in this country won't put their names to if there are funds to be had. Reality check here, folks: the fact is that universities are only peripherally concerned with academia. Every department in every university in the land now has to meet annual, arbitrarily-set targets for winning research grants. Every profile for every academic post on offer, anywhere, requires the candidate to demonstrate that she or he has a "proven track record" of attracting funding. You cannot be, or seek to become, a university lecturer without also being a fund-raiser. It is not sufficient to be (for example) a brilliant scholar or lecturer: that is not the kind of profile which gets you appointed to an academic post; or indeed, sufficient to keep you in post. The entire academic establishment of the UK is chasing the next grant, because you know that if you don't get it, your job is on the line.

If there's money to be had, a university is going to set up a 'centre' to do it. Bet you that a language department somewhere will be offering courses in Na'vi ere long.


Geibespegial

Aelwyd is right - grants are sought and gratefully accepted from myriads of potentially biased, non-neutral, political, miltary or other organisations with axes and far more offensive weapons to grind, and have been for decades (Berkeley's Lawrence Livermore Lab is still funded, legitimately, by the U.S. nuclear weapons programme).

All I was saying is give EMRC time with the "judicious" being determined initially by peer review and then by discussion after publication in peer-reviewed journals. Those are the accepted rules.

By all means argue with their popular articles such as this one but understand that, formally, that is not the centre's product. And by all means argue with sincerity of the funders good will, if you wish to do so.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/28/muslims-media-hate-crimes?showallcomments=true#comment-51

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. I admit I don't like that Rushdie remark

but I don't see a problem with a University having a centre about one particular religion:

http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/about_the_department/links_to_faculty_related_centres.htm
http://www.centreforcatholicstudies.co.uk/

etc.

Do you really think a centre concerned with a religion is going to start from the point "is this whole religion a danger?" They're not saying "anything that Islamists do is OK"; they're saying you can be a strict Islamist and still be a lawful, politically-engaged member of European society who works with people from other or no religions. They're against the automatic demonisation of Muslims. And frankly the comments on the Guardian blog show they are needed.

[Scurrilous]

3. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. kick