Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism: a Reply to Maajid Nawaz.

with 7 comments

The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism.

Maajid Nawaz writes, in the Daily Beast,

The desire to impose religion over society is otherwise known as theocracy. Being veterans of the struggle to push back against fundamentalist Christians, American liberals are well acquainted with the pitfalls of the neoconservative flirtation with the religious-right. How ironic, then, that in Europe it is those on the left—led by the Guardian—who flirt with religious theocrats. For in the UK, our theocrats are brown, from minority communities, and are overwhelmingly Muslim.

Stop: if Nawaz considers that the Guardian is representative of the ‘left’ then there is a problem here. The paper officially backed the Liberal Democrats an election ago, – his party – not even going far enough to the left to support Labour.

True there are plenty of columnists for the Guardian (and exceptions, does he ever read Polly Toynbee?) like Reverend Giles Fraser, who have a soft spot for Islamism and spend their time wittering away about “shared identities” and linking Islamist “radicalism” with a fight against injustice.. Some, like Seumas Milne (who has stronger  claims to be on the left),  think that the struggle for progressive principles runs so far ‘within’ Islamism that he could back the right-wing Ennahda  party in Tunisia for its apparent calls for ‘social justice’ against left-wing secularist parties.

The Guardian also opened its pages to writers who loathed Charlie Hebdo, and French secularism, at the time of the Islamist attack on the Weekly, and the murder of Jewish customers at Hyper- Casher.

Seumas Milne denounced Charlie for repeated pornographic humiliation.” of the Prophet. Fraser felt the pain of “a beleaguered, economically fragile Muslim community”.

While condemning the killings with a sentence or two,  they immediately went out of their way to understand the ‘anger’ of people at seeing rude cartoons about their religion.

These people, and they include would apparently set up a list of rules and regulation to govern what is satire and what is not. It should, we heard endlessly, only attack the ‘powerful’. That, according to Will Self, we should drop the “sexual fetish” of defending the right of people to express themselves freely.

It was no doubt no coincidence that Respect’s MP,  George Galloway was particularly keen on a set of regulations to keep in check people’s tendency to make fun of others.

For those who came up with their hare-brained idea we can only guess that at their public schools they  had read Juvenal’s line

…difficile est saturam non scribere. nam quis iniquaetam patiens urbis, tam ferreus, ut teneat se

It is hard not to write Satire. For who is so tolerant of the unjust City, so steeled, that he can restrain himself.

Yup, injustice, that’s all satire should be about.

But one doubts if their ‘rules’ can fit Viz magazine’s idea of satire:

https://40.media.tumblr.com/d8b147fa7dbc341d3a74323a6295a52b/tumblr_ndpet99xRw1r7pphso1_500.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/i762.photobucket.com/albums/xx262/SteveStrummerGB/Viz.png

I jest.

On the left there were others who stood with those who would regulate free speech to suit the demands of ‘Muslims’, and some (like a former supporter of your party Nawaz, the Liberal Democrat voting, Tariq Ali, as well as more obvious sources, like the Socialist Workers Party) who essentially claimed that Charlie “had it coming”.

But there were plenty of left-wing people, and organisations who stood with the martyrs of Charlie.

Groups like the Alliance for Workers Liberty, the paper, the Weekly Worker, and, more importantly countless Facebook friends, democratic socialists, social democrats, liberals and believers in human rights – hundreds of thousands of left-wing and liberal people in this country wept at the murders of our beloved comrades at Charlie and the Jewish victims of the anti-Semite killers  and stood up against Islamist violence when it counted.

Your write,

There is a natural fear among Europe’s left, that challenging Islamist extremism can only aid Europe’s far-right. But the alternative to this fear must not be to instead empower theocratic fascism. There is a way to both challenge those who want to impose islam, and those who wish to ban Islam. It has not escaped me, nor other liberal Muslims, that while challenging Islamist extremism we must remain attentive to protecting our civil liberties. We are born of this struggle, after all.

Some of us are born of this struggle as it echoed in the United Kingdom. and across the world:

The Real Origins of Secularism.

Secularism, in the form of laïcité, was the product of the 19th, not the 18th century. As Georges Weill explained (Histoire de l’idée laïque en France au XXe siècle. 1929, new edition, 2004) it was during the 1840s that the idea that administration and government of the country should be free from any religious power, emerged. Edgar Quinet ( 1803 – 1875) was one of the first to advocate a “une séparation complète radicale” of religious institutions from the State (Page 147 – 149)

Quinet’s emphasis on the idea of secular education, “l’école laïque ” was to be at the centre of all the subsequent fights for laïcité. Jules Ferry, who created the basis for a republican education system liberated from the –Catholic Church –, was only able to begin to realise this ideal after the Second Empire, under clerical domination, had fallen. The Third Republic (founded 1875) was rocked by divisions on the issue. It was only in 1905 that France saw a real separation of Church and State (with numerous exceptions, notably concerning private Catholic education, which continued, with subsidies).

Weill indicates that far from being the result of a violent hostility to religion French secularism originates in four sources. The first came from ‘Galician’ Catholics who opposed the ultramontagne power of the Pope over their own affairs, and, as the century progressed from Catholics who became attached to republican ideals. The second was amongst liberal Protestants, who had obvious (and blood-stained) reasons to distrust the power of the official Church. A third were desists, who wanted religion, illuminated by science, to be free from the doctrinal control of Papal Curia.

Only in the fourth category, the “libres penseurs”, can we find those with some debt to Hébert. The early workers’ movement owed a debt to Christian belief, particularly to Lamenais’ Paroles d’un croyant (1834), which rooted Christianity in democracy and social causes (in many respects more advanced than British ‘Christian socialism’ and still worth reading). But as the century progressed anti-clericalism spread amongst the socialists as well as amongst those who would become the so-called ‘Radical Socialist’ party (the word ‘radical’ comes from the British ‘radicals’ like John Stuart Mill). Many of the popular classes simply abandoned religion. 

For myself this is one part of the socialist heritage: the ‘synthesis’ between democratic Marxism and universal human rights for which  one of our greatest martyrs, Jean Jaurès, was assassinated.

Note that many secularists are ‘believers’.

Secularism is freedom to believe….

At a time when our comrades are again being slaughtered in Bangladesh for the crime of criticising  Islam and Islamists in the shape of the genocidal Daesh movement are attacking minorities, enslaving, and as you say…..

Will you join with this movement?

Back the Kurdish fighters, and the brace voices for secularism and freedom in every country – in many cases people deeply rooted in the Left?

The choice is for everybody.

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Source: The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism: a Reply to Maajid Nawaz. […]

  2. You are engaging in intellectual acrobatics now, Andrew.

    The section of the Guardian which are Islamist apologists maps almost exactly onto those who are worshipping at the altar of Jeremy Corbyn. It is overwhelmingly not the Lib Dems doing so, it is Corbynites and far leftists.

    You personally have an admirable record of opposing Islamism and standing for secularism and universal human right., The problem you have is that you are supporting Corbyn for his economic principles, but that means putting yourself alongside the Milneites and Tummonite Islamists. And they are currently more representative of the British left than you are. Sadly, more people read the Guardian than read Tendance Coatesy and Shiraz Socialist.

    It need not have been this way. The British left didn’t have to get caught up in apologism for objectively far right anti-Enlightenment ideology. It was wrong and it was mad. But a lot of it has, and it won’t do to act as if apologism for Islamism is not:

    1. A Lib Dem moreso than a Labour problem.
    2. Nothing to do with the candidate you are supporting for Labour leader. Corbyn has been one of the most egregious examples on the left for this.

    Seriously, why on earth would I join a Labour movement where people who would have various sections of society, including myself – reduced to second-class rights, imprisoned or killed (quite coincidentally the same groups always targeted by Nazis and other fascists) are viewed as less extreme and more committed to ‘social justice’ than the Tories? Can’t you see why many people would find that personally alarming?

    Don’t expect me to connive in making the enemies of human rights for Jews, women, LGBT and others respectable and ‘progressive’. If David Cameron had been attending KKK conferences, there would rightly be a political shit-storm. Why are the left’s far right fascists a different matter?

    And please don’t smear people as ‘right wing’ ‘Daily Mail readers’ for pointing out the indisputable fact that the Corbynite left (i.e. now over half of the British left) has a creepy infatuation with Islamist far rightists (it’s pretty fond of the Russian variety too, by no coincidence whatsoever), and has done for years.

    Lamia

    August 12, 2015 at 2:06 pm

  3. I read a quite-approving review of “Who is Charlie?” by one Emmanuel Todd (who he?) in the Guardian (where else?) but I have to wonder why no publisher in the UK has brought out Charb’s “Lettre aux escrocs de l’islamophobie qui font le jeu des racistes” (which is available, as as far as I can tell, doing very well in German under the title “Brief an die Heuchler: Und wie sie den Rassisten in die Hände spielen”).

    Won’t even the “decents” publish it? Or might they just have a problem with Charb’s politics of class struggle and prefer the so-called discourse of “islamophobia”?

    In any case, it would certainly fit the Tendance’s party line.

    dagmar

    August 28, 2015 at 11:00 pm

  4. The statistics behind the book have been demolished here: https://mondegeonumerique.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/ou-est-charlie-et-si-les-cartes-du-11-janvier-demmanuel-todd-montraient-tout-autre-chose/

    Todd’s specialty is family demographics. I’ve read a number of his pot-boilers over the years. One theme is his support for economic protectionism.

    He is politically wobbly: going from fervent support for Hollande, in whom he foresaw a « Roosevelt » français to bitter deception after he became President.

    Many people would simply class Todd as a contrarian out to make a name for himself.

    I would not take his views on Charlie seriously, though obviously the kind of spiteful liberal who loathes Charlie and writes for the Guardian and those who read academic books published by Polity, will be happy to find whatever they want in his writings.

    The critique linked to above suggests that you could correlate poor turn out for Je Suis Charlie to areas where there was a high rate of abstention in elections. There are also indications that low turnouts occurred where the Front National has support – amongst poor unqualified working class (dans certains cas, un taux élevé de vote Front National peut s’accompagner selon la région d’une participation faible ou forte aux manifestations. _.

    Todd’s arguments – which have been attacked to death in the French media – are a crock of shite.

    Andrew Coates

    August 29, 2015 at 11:29 am

  5. There is also this recent statement by Todd (July) – a hysterical anti-German rant,

    Emmanuel Todd estime que l’Europe est actuellement “contrôlée par l’Allemagne et par ses satellites baltes, polonais, etc” et qu’elle est “devenue un système hiérarchique, autoritaire”. “On est en train sans doute d’assister à la troisième autodestruction de l’Europe”, estime-t-il, rappelant les précédentes : “Il y a d’abord eu la guerre de 14, puis la deuxième guerre mondiale.” Il en conclut que “l’Europe est un continent qui, au XXe siècle, de façon cyclique, se suicide sous direction allemande.”

    http://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/grece/pour-emmanuel-todd-l-europe-se-suicide-sous-direction-allemande_994221.html

    Andrew Coates

    August 29, 2015 at 11:52 am

  6. Have you read Charb’s polemic pamphlet? It was nothing new (to me), but good to see the bloody obvious (yet not “common sense”) in prent.

    dagmar

    August 29, 2015 at 12:34 pm

  7. Yes.

    There’s a review of it on this site.

    Andrew Coates

    August 29, 2015 at 3:00 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: