In Part 1, I delved into the query of whether there was an issue with Islamism within the UK and concluded that there’s.
Before I begin with Part 2, it is crucial to remind ourselves that it’s Islamism and never Islam that’s the problem. And to do not forget that there are lots of Muslims who are usually not Islamists and who’re effective residents and welcome members of the community. But now we’d like to ask what could be done about Islamism?
The head within the sand approach which appears to be the bulk position of the elites within the UK is not going to do. Either because they don’t understand Islamism, or they don’t perceive it as any threat to themselves, or they’ve just develop into scared.
It seems that much of the establishment would relatively talk in regards to the danger of Islamophobia than the danger of Islamism. Take for instance the now unfunny comedian Frankie Boyle, who proves the mantra, ‘go woke, lose your sense of humour’, who this week tweeted: “If I see the word Islamist, I just assume I’m about to read the incoherent rambling of a crazed racist.”
What is Islamophobia? The term is a recent one, invented by the Runnymede Trust in 1997. It was meant to confer with an “unfounded hostility towards Islam”. But now it’s getting used as a de facto blasphemy law to silence all criticism of Islam and Islamists. In passing I note that there is no such thing as a attempt by any politician to ascertain a criminal offense of Christophobia, or Hinduphobia. Why?
In 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims defined ‘Islamophobia’ very broadly as a “form of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. All except the Tories adopted this definition.
In its proposals for what in effect amounts to a recent blasphemy law, the APPG included a lot of offences, amongst them claiming Muhammad was a paedophile (due to his marriage to a 12 yr old), blaming Muslims for the actions of Muslim states, or claiming that Islam was spread by the sword. The latter would make it inconceivable for historian Tom Holland’s book The Shadow of the Sword to be published nowadays.
It also proposed that accusing Muslims of inventing or exaggerating the term ‘Islamophobia’ could be against the law, as would suggesting that any Muslim was more loyal to the Ummah (the transnational Muslim community) than to this country – even in the event that they were!
The results of that is that freedom of speech, labour and movement, are already being severely restricted within the UK. Again, there are many examples but let me cite a couple of well-known ones.
In 2007 extremism, which included misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism and anti-democracy, in a couple of British mosques was exposed by the Channel Four documentary Undercover Mosques. But as an alternative of coping with the actual hate from the hate preachers, the West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service attacked the documentary makers, claiming that they had distorted the imam’s words and brought them out of context. In 2008 Channel Four were vindicated with a public apology and a six-figure libel settlement from the police and CPS. But I doubt they or every other mainstream media would dare to make such a programme now. Nobody desires to be accused of blasphemy when you may have to face each the mob and the police!
In one of the crucial ironic moments in modern Britain, the Mall Galleries in London withdrew a bit called ‘Isis Threaten Sylvania’, by the satirical artist Miriam Elia, from its ‘Passion for Freedom’ exhibition in 2015. The piece portrayed the fictional land of Sylvania where some animals gathered to rejoice Pride. In the gap are three little figures, squirrels or hedgehogs, in black masks with a machine gun. The police sent e-mails to the gallery saying it could cause offence and that it was not art.
Elia’s response is as relevant today because it was nine years ago: “The decision to censor shows that our establishment is more threatened by satire, clarity and truth than by young men willing to kill, rape and pillage within the name of Islam. Apparently, my images were ‘potentially inflammatory’ to terrorists. This is the equivalent of claiming an anti-Nazi cartoon within the late Nineteen Thirties was offensive … to Nazis. Those who justify and protect barbaric totalitarianism, in whichever form, are on the fast track to becoming totalitarian themselves.”
If you would like to measure how far fear of Islamism has gone within the UK, just consider that while photographer Andres Serrano’s grotesque ‘Piss Christ’ was permitted to be exhibited within the UK with none police interference, a satirical piece about terrorist organisation ISIS was in effect banned by the police.
Another example could be present in the Muslim-made film Lady of Heaven which was pulled by Cineworld after demonstrations from some Muslims. The trouble was that the film was made by the incorrect type of Muslim – Shias – and so the Sunni hardliners campaigned against it and since Cineworld couldn’t guarantee the security of their staff, it was pulled. The police said and did nothing, while politicians were silent. Not a word from those now complaining so loudly about Islamophobia.
Or take the infamous case of the teacher in Batley who was forced into hiding because he showed his pupils a picture of Muhammad. The school suspended him. The police reassured ‘the community’ and the Huffington Post referred to the image as a ‘racist caricature’. Again the overwhelming majority of the establishment commentariat were silent. And where is the teacher now? Still in hiding three years later, fearing for his life.
My final example (there are lots of others) is of an autistic boy in Wakefield who scuffed a Quran. He had brought one to highschool with three of his friends, and apparently dropped it. As a result, he received death threats. The boys were suspended and their behaviour was logged by the police as a ‘hate incident’, whilst those that actually made death threats were left untouched. This is modern Britain and shortly it’s going to be illegal to say so.
The answer to all of that is firstly to make sure that now we have free speech and that the irrational and illiberal desire to censor on behalf of 1 religion have to be stopped. Instead of pandering to the Islamists, possibly a part of the reply is for the UK to take the approach of our French cousins who this week deported an imam, Mahjoub Mahjoubi, for hate speech after calling the French flag “satanic”.
In Germany the federal government will now not allow imams from Turkey to evangelise in its mosques, and Denmark, one of the crucial left-wing progressive countries, now has harsher laws for this than every other country in Western Europe.
Melanie Phillips, in her controversial bestselling book from 2006, Londonistan, detailed how the UK typically and London specifically had develop into a haven for Islamism within the West. At the time I wondered if her book was exaggerated, but her argument, that administrative incompetence and cultural weakness permitted this to occur, has largely been demonstrated to be true.
I doubt that any of our governments or lots of our political leaders will take this seriously because the executive incompetence and cultural weakness have only increased previously few years – a present to the far right (or indeed the far left).
But there’s one other way.
Take the amazing story of Spencer Fildes, former chair of the Scottish Secular Society (SSS). He and I were, for some time, enemies until sooner or later something modified. The SSS had been bitterly and publicly against any public display of Christianity and were especially indignant with public Christians like yours truly. But Spencer, to be fair to him, was an equal opportunities anti-religious person.
Spencer wrote: “It got here to a head once I desired to do something on Dundee University forcing the feminine teaching undergraduates to cover their legs and arms on a visit to the local mosque. Then holding a ‘who looks best in a hijab’ competition … then photographing the scholars wearing it … One of my secular colleagues said I used to be ‘no higher than the far right … This unreasonable hyperbolic nonsense was relentless, all secularists ever wish to do is Christian bash, it is not about separation of church and state, it is a deeply embedded leftfield political hatred of the Christian right. This is why they make curious bedfellows with Islamists. I wanted no part in it.”
For his interesting thoughts on why the ‘progressive secularists’ argued for a Muslim candidate to develop into Scottish First Minister, while bitterly attacking a Christian, I like to recommend his recent blog post. Several years later Spencer is now a Christian brother and friend.
And therein lies the reply.
We need the liberty to share the gospel, without being accused of Islamophobia. And people must have the liberty to decide on their very own religion, something which exists in hardly any Muslim country.
I once gave a lecture at a Muslim college which had been arrange by Middle Eastern money with one aim being to attempt to establish a more ‘liberal’ type of Islam. I spoke on the Islamic doctrine of tolerance and in the middle of the lecture I asked, “If someone apostatises from Islam and becomes a Christian, should they be punished by the State, or should they be given freedom to decide on?”
To my complete astonishment just about all the scholars argued apostasy was punishable by death, imprisonment or fines. At that time I realised that the view that by some means a liberal Islamic version of separation of church and state would develop was an illusion. But I didn’t foresee that a time would come when the UK would reintroduce a blasphemy law – this time on behalf of the Islamists. The government and state authorities must speak up for the victims, not defend the oppressors.
When I used to be pastor of a then very small congregation in Dundee my sister came visiting and witnessed a young Pakistani boy being beaten up on the road in what was clearly a racist attack. She got here home and asked what I used to be going to do about it. I shrugged my shoulders. What could I do? “Typical Christian – all talk and no motion.” She convicted me. So, we arrange an Asian ministry to share the love of Christ with the Asians in our city and amongst other things there was for a time a joint Urdu Quranic/Bible study led by a multilingual colleague.
The local imam asked me to return and see him. He was from Pakistan but there was a person with him who was a white convert from Manchester. He was furious – how dare we attempt to convert Muslims! I explained that as biblical Christian, I never tried to convert anyone, because I could not. We only wanted all people without discrimination, including Asians and Muslims, to listen to the Good News of Jesus. Before the convert could answer, the imam spoke up: “I agree with my brother, David. He isn’t being racist or against Islam. God is sovereign. Let him determine.” Maybe our legislators should hearken to the imam. Let God determine – not them!
There is simply One who breaks down the dividing wall of partition. Christians should never be ‘Islamophobic’ – if by that you just mean ‘afraid of Islam’. Nor should we despise Muslims, who like us, are human beings made within the image of God. But we must always take the chance to like our Muslim neighbours. And one of the best approach to love them is to share Christ with them, who brings a life and relationship with God that Islam never can.
David Robertson is the minister of Scots Kirk Presbyterian Church in Newcastle, New South Wales. He blogs at The Wee Flea.
