'Think tank: Betrayal of Muslim reformers'

Monday, 24 November 2008 14:00

Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion, writes in the Sunday Times of the ‘victims of intimidation’ highlighted in the latest report produced by the Centre.

Murray refers to Nyamko Sabuni of Sweden and Denmark’s Manu Sareen both of whom have been victims of intimidation for their work in resisting the practice of female genital mutilation and honour killings. Both are indeed reprehensible acts but neither is Islamic. The work of Sabuni and Sareen in working to challenge the practice of these acts are not examples of ‘reformist’ behaviour since challenging these practices is also the work of the ‘conservatives’ Murray so derides.

Murray laments the practice of governments, at home as well as in Europe, that thinks nothing of dealing with ‘self appointed’ Muslim spokesmen but fails to consider the views of these victims of intimidation.

A few things here that gives Murray’s piece the context and fuller picture it so lacks:

1. Who are the ‘self appointed’ spokesmen that Murray alludes to and on what grounds are they considered self appointed? There is no mention in the article of individuals or organisations although from missives launched by Murray in the past one can be sure he is referring to organisations like the MCB (who he does quote in the article).

The MCB has consistently explained that is speaks only for those organisations that are affiliated to it and is itself legitimately representative of these organisations given that they are party to the body’s constitution and elect the MCB’s office bearers at the bi-annual general meeting.

And is it Murray’s contention that the ‘self appointed’ MCB be replaced with the equally self appointed reformers, the latter acceptable however, because their views are more to Murray’s liking?

2. Murray speaks of ‘Muslim reformers’ but his piece is about the sidelining of views held by (a) those that no longer consider themselves adherents of the faith (ex Muslims) and (b) those that are working to challenge certain practices in the Muslim communities of Europe that they consider anachronistic (reformers).

One wonders exactly what legitimacy could be granted to the views of those that no longer practice Islam to speak on the religion. What right do those that no longer practice a religion have to speak of that religion and have their views validated as authentic? They are entitled to their views, certainly, but to suppose that they reflect Muslim opinion on various matters when they are themselves no longer Muslims?

Murray’s consideration for ‘Muslim reformers’ also seems misplaced given his liberal preoccupation; the right to freedom of expression.

The Victims of Intimidation report mentions Ekin Deligöz who in an article in Bild am Sonntag is said to have called on all Muslim women in Germany to stop wearing the headscarf; a 'sign of oppression for Muslim women' (p.6), or Samira Munir, who is said to have supported a ban on hijab in Norwegian schools (p.14), and Nyamko Sabuni, who supported a motion to ban all girls under 15 from wearing the headscarf (p.17).

One must ask what form of free expression Murray is advocating when the rights of Deligöz, Munir and Sabuni to obstruct the wearing of the headscarf is championed in defence of free expression but not the rights of the many thousands of Muslim women across Europe who freely choose to adopt one? Intimidation after all is not just exercised by the many over the few, but also, as the examples of Deligöz, Munir and Sabuni demonstrate, by the few over the many.

And these are ‘the true progressives’ who ‘are the best hope not just for Muslims but for us all’, according to Murray.

Yes, you would be right to wonder if the real victims of intimidation are the Muslims Murray would rather neglect in favour of these ‘true progressives’. And of course this is the same Murray who argued in his Pim Fortuyn Memorial Lecture in 2006:

'The point here is that the whole deal under which Muslims live in our societies must change. ... Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition. We in Europe owe – after all – no special dues to Islam. We owe them no religious holidays, special rights or privileges.'

You can read more comment on the so-called victims of intimidation on Islamophobia Watch, link here.

Comments

Add New