Secular Asians for Secular Democracy

Islamophobia Watch - Home - Stop pandering to Muslims says ‘silent majority’

Last week an outfit calling itself “British Muslims for Secular Democracy” had their big launch party, attended by Baroness Kishwer Falkner and “former Islamist Ed Husain”. This is after the group, and its rather shoddy website (text which gets bigger when you move the mouse over it, blue bars in the middle of the text), have been active for months, if not well over a year. Its chair is Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and its trustees include the infamous Taj Hargey, senior NHS manager Dr Shaaz Mahboob, a bloke called Imran Ahmad who wrote a book called Unimagined and has some sort of career in Information Systems in which he travels round the world, and Ghayasuddin Siddiqui (and that’s only the people whose profile says other than that they are BMSD trustees). This list, while it may be said to be diverse, is hardly representative of the large body of Muslims that the existing Muslim organisations already represent.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown came out with this astonishing gaffe during her speech, which was reproduced by the Guardian:

“The government has found a way of placating Muslims in a way that will only damage us in the long term, Muslims wanting separate schools or different measures. There must be one law for all.

“This differential accommodation leads to us being pushed to the edges. How is it that the Sikhs and Hindus can live in democracy but not Muslims?”

It is a fact that Sikh men have one of the best-known legal opt-outs: they are allowed to wear their turbans in place of motorcycle helmets. This is typical of what Muslims have been demanding - the right to wear common religiously-mandated dress and yet have the same opportunities as everyone else - only there is a real safety issue at hand, not just social conformity. The level of accommodation to Muslims is overstated, in any case, particularly where funding is concerned; one only has to look at the profusion of Catholic schools and compare it to the handful of state-funded Muslim schools. Her sweeping accusation that “Sikhs and Hindus can live in democracy but not Muslims” is bunk; while the majority of Muslims (including religious ones) actually can live in democracy, one remembers that a mob of Sikhs managed to stop a play they found offensive from being performed a few years ago (Muslims have had much less success). It is also a fact that Sikhs resorted to terrorism to get their own state in India, including bombing passenger planes out of the air, and the antics of Hindu fundamentalists in a democratic state - India - are also well-known.

Still, in an organisation ostensibly of British Muslims for anything, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Taj Hargey really are completely out of place as they are not Muslims. Alibhai-Brown is an Ismaili, a sect rejected (for centuries, I might add) by the mainstream of Islam, while Taj Hargey is part of one of the hadeeth-rejecting cults as several of his MECO press releases demonstrate. Of course, I do not dispute their right to live their own lives and practise their own religions in a free country, but for them to promote themselves to the media as Muslims, and as more representative than the established organisations representing real Muslims, is dishonest. Both are well-known for using a spurious “Muslim” identity to promote ideas damaging to real Muslims, namely that the customs and strictures of the observantly religious are actually not Islamic, even though the consensus of Islamic scholarly opinion is that they very much are. Some of Alibhai-Brown’s writings on race issues and discrimination are valuable, but she takes an extreme position against accommodating religious practice and has, in this line, slandered religious Muslim women by accusing “sanctimonious British niqabis” of siding with Muslim wife-beaters rather than their victims.

The nearest thing the BMSD have to a mainstream religious Muslim on their board is Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, who is well-known for being one of the leading lights in the so-called Muslim Parliament, a highly undemocratic institution which acted as a spearhead for Iranian influence over the Muslim community in England and which was foremost in championing Khomeini’s fatwa. Now that their star has well and truly waned, their spokesmen are always looking for more excuses to get publicity and influence. He boasts of his work on human rights at Guantanamo and in the Campaign Against Criminalising Communities, but if he was serious about Muslims’ rights, he would not associate with the likes of Taj Hargey.

BMSD is, therefore, a ragbag of dishonest, inveterate sectarian spoilers and a few wealthy secular Muslims (or secular British Pakistanis). Their claim to be a “silent majority” is laughable, since Hargey and Alibhai-Brown have been very noisy indeed. What makes these people think they are more representative of British Muslims than the observant are? In fact, probably more typical of less-observant Muslims than these wealthy Asian secularists are the Asian yobs who are known of in some of the ghettos of northern England. If there was great discontent about the failings of the MCB, it would be much discussed on the Internet and in the Muslim media, but clearly there is less now than when the MCB was set up, and organisations primarily reflecting the observant are a great necessity, because if religious observance faces petty obstructions at every turn, then theoretical religious freedom means nothing. Really, as far as I can see, religious Muslims do not seek to stand in the way of the success of our less observant co-religionists, so let them enjoy their success without standing in our way by slandering us or those who stand for us.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Possibly Related Posts:


FacebookTwitterIdenti.caDeliciousDiggStumbleUponWordPressShare
SecularismPermalink
  • http://www.ginnysthoughts.com Ginny

    Assalamu alaikum, very interesting post, not good, though, a group of “pseudo-Muslims” attempting to speak for “real” or I should say, orthodox Muslims…

  • http://daunmu.wordpress.com/ Yunus Yakoub Islam

    I heard from someone who was at the launch. Apparently, Ed told the audience most South Asian Muslims don’t get democracy because there is no word for ‘democracy’ in Urdu. It has to be said. Ed is dead in the head.

  • George Carty

    According to Ed’s logic there should be no democracy outside Greece! Anyway, why do we English speakers use that Greek word rather than an indigenous one like “commonwealth”?

  • Ali Abdullah

    “Ed” said this too:

    “Husain advanced three reasons why some Muslims have a ‘psychological block’ against secularism. Firstly, the words for secularism in some languages, such as Urdu, have meanings equivalent to ‘atheism’, which can prove off-putting.”

    http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2008/05/rsa-debate-agrees-secular-state-is-best.html

    In many ways the BMSD and the QF are much the same. The fact that Ghayasuddin Siddiqui is in both groups says it all really! About time it was made clear that the so-called Muslim Parliament doesn’t actually exist any more!

  • Archie

    BMSD is a rather unfortunate choice of name. Imagine my surprise when I mistyped it in my Google search…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM

  • Thersites

    “Bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism”- all the attributes of religion.

  • http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/ Andromeda

    What do you think of these membership rules?

    ARTICLE 1 Any citizen who has reached the age of 18 who accepts the Party’s principles and is willing to join and work actively in on its behalf and agrees to pays his membership fees may apply for membership in the Party.

    ARTICLE 2 (1) Members of the Party are to act in the National Interest.

    (2) Members of the Party are at all times ordinary citizens. Party members must not seek personal gain or privileges, although the relevant laws and policies provide them with personal benefits and job-related functions and powers.

    ARTICLE 3 Party members agree to the following:

    (1) To interest themselves in the theories and practices of good government throughout the ages and throughout the world while suspending any cultural, religious, social or political prejudices they may have.

    (2) To implement Minimum Government by which is meant the fewest laws and the lowest possible taxes necessary for Justice to subsist.

    (3) To use these minimum laws and taxes in service of the greatest good of the greatest number.

    (4) To practice personal responsibility while encouraging others to do so.

    (5) To strive for the economic, social, cultural and educational advancement of the Nation.

    (6) To speak out and address an issue that he perceives to affect the National Interest, even if it goes against the current orthodoxy (whatever that may be).

    (7) To rigorously analyse the logic of any argument used or the truth of any statement relied upon.

    (8) To act in accordance to with the highest standards of ethical behaviour that is consistent with Truth, Justice, Reason and the National Interest.

    (9) To uphold the Party’s solidarity, unity and singularity by resolving disagreements through debate, a thorough investigation of the issues and voting.

    (10) To be open to discussion, whether in defending one’s views or questioning another’s.

    (11) To maintain close ties with non-member citizens, informing them of Party policy and thinking, consult with them when problems arise, keep the Party regularly informed of their views and demands and defend their legitimate interests.

    (12) To approve only laws that are proportionate to the evil to be addressed and in the National Interest, which are necessary to prevent crime, nuisance, damage to property and other ascertainable and provable evils. (For example, smoking in a public house or smoking in a public place is not a “provable evil.” Citizens dying sooner as a result of smoking-related diseases that are self-inflicted is not provably harmful to the Nation.)

    (13) To repeal any anti-discrimination “thought crime” legislation in existence that limits the citizen’s freedom of association and contract.

    (14) To NOT

    (a) use legislation as a means of favouring one group over another, such as apartheid, or

    (b) use legislation to prevent citizens from discriminating against any groups, such as legislating against against age, sex, race, sexual orientiation and disability discrimination.

    (15) To urge what is good and forbid what is evil, after due consultation and debate.

    ARTICLE 4 Party members enjoy the following rights:

    (1) To attend relevant Party meetings, read relevant Party documents, and benefit from the Party’s education and training.

    (2) To participate in the discussion of questions concerning the Party’s policies at Party meetings and in Party newspapers and journals.

    (3) To make suggestions and criticisms regarding the work of the Party.

    (4) To criticise any Party organization or member at Party meetings, to present information or charges against any Party organization or member concerning violations of discipline or the law to the Party, to demand disciplinary measures against such a member, or call for dismissal or replacement of any incompetent or corrupt member.

    (5) To participate in voting and elections and to stand for election.

    (6) To attend, with the right of self-defence, discussions held by Party organizations to decide on disciplinary measures to be taken against themselves in the appraisal of work and behaviour; and call on other Party members to bear witness or argue on their behalves.

    (7) In case of disagreement with a Party decision or policy, to make reservations and present their views to the Party, provided that they implement the policy while it is in force.

    (8) To put forward any request, appeal, or complaint to the Party and be entitled to a substantive response.

    (9) No Party member or organization has the right to deprive any Party member of the above-mentioned rights.

    ARTICLE 5

    Party oath to be sworn by members:

    “It is my intention to implement the Party’s program of Minimum Government and work in the National Interest. I believe that the National Interest is best served by a meritocratic political system where there is no representation without taxation under which citizens practise personal responsibility, self-sufficiency and are educated, open-minded, ethical, versatile and rational in their actions.”

    Vote: Do you like the sound of these membership rules?

    http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=107

  • http://www.xanga.com/imthemad1 Imad

    This is a pretty fascist criticism - deciding which sects can call themselves Muslim and which cannot!

  • Indigo Jo

    Imad: it’s not fascist. There are criteria for who is a Muslim and who isn’t, and Isma’ilis and hadeeth rejectors don’t fit them and aren’t Muslim. That’s all there is to it.

  • Thersites

    “There are criteria for who is a Muslim and who isn’t, and Isma’ilis and hadeeth rejectors don’t fit them and aren’t Muslim. ” Except that they use different criteria to you.

    There was a discussion some time ago based on the belief that people who approved of gay marriage were not muslims whereas people who committed mass murder based on their interpretation of islam were merely misguided muslims. I don’t think anyone ever established the criteria by which these distinctions were made, but that din’t stop people being sure that the distintions were valid.

  • http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/ Indigo Jo

    Thersites: the reason is belief. A person becomes a Muslim, or ceases to be one, on the basis of what they believe, or rather, what they affirm, not what they do. A Muslim does not cease to be a Muslim because of his or her deeds, as long as those deeds do not convey disdain for the religion, e.g. desecrating a copy of the Qur’an. The main criteria for disqualifying a person or group from Islam are deviation from what is well-known about Muslim doctrine, such as monotheism and prophethood. The extreme Shi’ite groups, such as the Isma’ilis, deviate on both grounds, while the hadith-rejectors deviate on the second, as we are told to “obey Allah and His Messenger”, yet they reject the only method of doing the latter.

  • Thersites

    ” A Muslim does not cease to be a Muslim because of his or her deeds, as long as those deeds do not convey disdain for the religion” Well, interpreting the quran as permitting the murder of random people suggests either contempt for the religion or a contemptible interpretation of the religion or a contemptible religion. Actions, they say, speak louder than words. Desecrating the meaning of the quran, I’d have thought, is rather worse than merely desecrating a copy of it. Some actions have worse effects than others.

    I don’t know about Ismailis, but they seem to think that their interpretation of islam does not deviate from monotheism and prophethood. Again, they’re on a continuum of thought. Whether they fall over the edge- or whether there is an edge- is another question. After all, at the other end of the continuum, there are muslims who mantain that every shia is not a muslim. The same applies with hadith-rejectors. The classification of the reliability of hadith means rejecting some. In many cases hadith-rejector is a misnomer, surely; most do not reject hadith completely, they use different criteria to other muslims to assess their veracity. However, even those that do not use hadith as exemlars at all would argue that following the quran was obedience to god and his messenger. without the messenger their would be no message to follow.