Irony rules, OK?

One of the most egregiously silly posters on the Guardian’s comically named and rigorously censored 'Comment is Free' site solemnly informs us that Islam is an “overwhelmingly peaceful and gentle religion whose people have been abused by the West for hundreds of years”.

Here is the latest peaceful and gentle story from that land of milk and honey and haven of sweetness and light, Saudi Arabia, with whom, our revered Queen assured us not so long ago, we have "shared values".

As Private Eye would say, “Shome mishtake, shurely?”

Unspeakable hate

When the King of Saudi Arabia paid a state visit to Britain in 2007, I choked over my breakfast on reading that Her Majesty the Queen, hosting a banquet for him at Buckingham Palace, had referred to “our two countries’ shared values”. Such obvious twaddle beggars belief. What shared values? Saudi Arabia is a male-dominated religious tyranny. It imposes the death penalty not only for sodomy (which term includes all same-sex contact, not just anal intercourse) but also for a wide range of other offences including murder, adultery, highway robbery, drug smuggling, sabotage, witchcraft, apostasy (renunciation of Islam), and “corruption on earth” – an extremely vague charge that featured during the Iranian Islamic Revolution as an excuse for executing political opponents of the Khomeini regime. Severe floggings, torture, and lengthy imprisonment in degrading conditions are all common features of the Saudi state theocracy – none of these, we trust, are Saudi values shared by our own dear Queen and her advisers. Now the Saudi monarch has provided ample confirmation that what Elizabeth II’s speech writers made her say was dishonest twaddle by declaring that “the democratic system that is predominant in the world is not a suitable system for the peoples of our region... The system of free elections is not suitable to our country”. As if we didn’t know already.

Freedom is not only about elections: in Western democracies it is seen as an individual personal right, subject to a just rule of law. It can only exist and flourish in a social and political climate of tolerance which has to be constantly cherished and vigorously preserved. This has been borne in on me by one of the most harrowing and degrading books to come my way recently – Unspeakable Love: Gay and Lesbian Life in the Middle East by Brian Whitaker (Saqi Books, 2006). It is harrowing because it vividly recalls a phase of my life, half a century ago, when I was in a similar, though less perilous, situation to many of those the author describes in Middle Eastern countries today; and it is degrading because it so vividly depicts the bigoted intolerance and cruelty of human beings who have too much power, fanatically held groundless beliefs, inadequate knowledge, and too little innate kindness.

It is also about a kind of holy humbug which is peculiar to systems of religion - not just Islam, but Judaism and many Christian denominations as well - which claim direct insights from their preferred god in order to justify laws, social codes, and behaviour which even the perpetrators must know in their innermost hearts are inhumane and senseless. How strange it is that those who believe in a loving spirit-god reckon the sins of the flesh to be so much more heinous than those of the spirit - sins which they themselves manifest all too often through implacable cruelty, lack of charity, and vicious hatred. These repulsive attitudes aren’t the sole preserve of Islam, but in the present age they are especially intractable in a religion which is still more rigidly bound by literalist interpretations of its scriptures (maybe because it is several hundred years younger than the other two).

As I pointed out in an earlier post, homosexuals are, by and large, a peaceable, inoffensive lot who just wish to get on with their own lives as they choose without interfering with or interference from others, and who are unlikely to get militantly aggressive even when viciously attacked: an ideal victim-target, in fact, for the pharisaical holier-than-thou, "thank God/Allah we are not like these people", bigots of all religious stripes who seek a public platform on which to strut their superiority to the common herd.

For much of my life I have fought publicly and strenuously against this primitive bigotry towards same-sex lovers, which largely emanates from religiously motivated folk. So far as Christians in the UK are concerned the battle has been largely won, and in the United States vehemently anti-gay protesters are dwindling in numbers and increasingly marginalised. But now we in the West have in our midst a growing population of Muslims whose preachers and government ministers in Islamic countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia think nothing of advocating torture, stoning, and hanging for those who are caught in the act. At an official level, at least, homosexuality is fiercely persecuted throughout the Middle East.

The hypocrisy of all this is staggering, as in addition to their sexism and male chauvinism Arab men in particular have always been notorious for their widespread indulgence in same-sex activity. Yet in these countries, and even in Britain, gay Muslims live in fear and are mostly unwilling to speak out about their predicament. Even so, throughout North Africa and the Middle East, as this book makes abundantly clear, there is a vibrant gay life, albeit no visible gay culture. Even under such oppressive regimes, a few seeds of openness have started to sprout in recent years, though in Islamic societies the concept of ‘gay liberation’ is almost universally dismissed – even by those who make love to others of their own sex - as decadent Western cultural imperialism. As the ongoing tussle in various UN and other international forums between Western democracies and the 57-state strong Islamic Conference who strenuously seek – sometimes with the connivance of the Roman Catholic Church - to water down the post-World War Two Universal Declaration of Human Rights shows, homosexuality and equal rights for women are both crucial sticking points in the contrasting Western and Islamic concepts of what human rights are.

Whitaker gives a fascinatingly well-informed analysis of the social, political, and religious differences over these issues in and between Muslim countries such as Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran - differences which extend to the attitudes of the gay people (hardly yet forming a ‘community’) in these countries. He recounts some horrifying stories of official and family-inspired cruelty and persecution, and also remarkable instances of great bravery and defiance on the part of those who have been brutalised, and in some cases had their lives ruined and even ended, because of their refusal to conform to traditional Islamic mores. One finishes reading Unspeakable Love stunned and dismayed by the primitive morality and sheer sadism of all too many worshippers of Allah, and at the same time heartened and humbled by the personal bravery of those who refuse to deny their own natures despite almost intolerable pressure.

Fifty years ago there was similar, though not quite equivalent, ignorance, bigotry, and official persecution of homosexual men in Britain. No one who was born after about 1960 has any real conception of the atmosphere in which I and others like me lived – as if we were resistance fighters in enemy-occupied territory. Most regarded the legal and social hazards as a theoretical risk about as serious as being knocked down by a bus when crossing the road. But there were increasing numbers of casualties, and the minority who were caught up in legal proceedings, or were ‘outed’ to their families and employers, had their lives wrecked, usually irretrievably. Following publication of the Wolfenden Report in the 1950s a few of us set out to change this state of affairs, and after ten years of hard struggle we succeeded in achieving the first step along a long road to legal equality and social acceptance. Would a similar reform movement be even conceivable, let alone remotely successful, in Muslim countries in the foreseeable future? One simply doesn’t know. The potential, and the mechanisms, for significant or swift social change in Islamic countries are, on the surface at least, lacking. The notion of an Islamic Wolfenden Report seems bizarre. However, contemplating the increasing interaction between people around the world stimulated by modern communications, and especially the internet, Brian Whitaker ends on a cautious note of optimism, and a guarded “Perhaps”. One can only hope he is right.

Education or indoctrination?

Over on Stephen Law’s blog, the debate with Ibrahim Lawson, the headmaster of an Islamic school, continues. I have previously referred to this three-month-long marathon in my 17 February post Islam in the West. It all started with a critical post by Stephen on 27 November [“Is religion dangerous?”], following Ibrahim’s assertion in a BBC broadcast that, in his view, it is OK to teach his pupils that the truth of Islam is a ‘given’ and must not be questioned. The discussion has since ranged far and wide over philosophical, religious, and mystical territory, and we are indebted to Ibrahim for his patience and stamina in returning time and again to rebut others’ criticisms and state his own position.

In his latest contribution he explains the rationale behind his decision to become a Muslim, and defends of his teaching methods. As regards his conversion to Islam, it turns out that there is no rationale – as Ibrahim says, “there is no why. ..my decision was rather an ‘acte gratuite’; but not in the negative sense of an irresponsible action.” It was “a pure act of will, undetermined by any external conditions”, and not based on any kind of evidence or argument. He quotes a Muslim scholar as saying “the man of Allah does not say ‘how?’ or ‘why?; he says ‘yes’.

As I pointed out to Ibrahim, there is a world of difference between a mature, highly educated man such as himself making this act of will, and instructing his young immature pupils with all the authority of an adult teacher that they must accept Islam as “the truth”. I asked him if he felt comfortable telling them this?

He made a long response, saying inter alia that “there is of course a huge difference between someone who chooses to be a Muslim following a long period of search and someone who is born to Muslim parents. We can’t do anything about that.” To which I retorted: “Oh, yes we can! We can ensure that they grow up with the awareness that although their parents are Muslim, there is nothing inevitable about them being Muslim, and they have a choice. It should be the business of educators – as distinct from indoctrinators – to provide them with the breadth of knowledge necessary for making an informed choice when they reach maturity.”

Ibrahim then said: “I grew up in a more or less permanent state of alienation from the society around me, as did many of my 60’s generation; born Muslims today will have their own version of this alienation. I was then, and remain, utterly convinced that ‘western’ society has serious problems, which are not solvable by tinkering but only by re-writing the whole paradigm” – presumably in the image of Islam.

Ibrahim continued: “So having decided that Islam is the answer, what are the implications for a school teacher?..…My view of the education of children is that it must, first and foremost, contribute to their individual ‘quest for the fullness of selfhood’ and that this is a subversive activity….In order to achieve this we must have questions that are worth asking, questions that demand a response.

“Teaching in the state system for 10 years, I observed that western liberal secular culture fails to provide children with such questions; the overwhelming sense is one of ennui. Muslim children, on the other hand, have in front of them all the time the enormous question: what does it mean to me to be a Muslim? This is why, for example, visitors to Muslim schools are frequently impressed by the degree of engagement demonstrated by many pupils in fundamental questions of self and society.

“So voila, my justification for ‘imposing’ my beliefs on my pupils: it is really more a challenge to them to face up to their own situation as ‘born’ Muslims as authentically as possible. Faith as a heuristic, if you like….

“I don’t know what you imagine goes on in our schools under the name of ‘indoctrination’. It could be made to sound very oppressive and tyrannical; we imagine Vietnamese communists brainwashing American POWs or scenes from Orwell’s 1984 [How many fingers am I holding up?] It’s rather that the specific question ‘Is Islam true?’ just doesn’t come up. It is taken for granted as the position from which we start….

“I can see that, yes, children are defenceless, they do not and cannot question what adults tell them at first; this only starts around adolescence. At this point we begin to introduce the skills of critical questioning about religion [quite different from critical questioning in other areas of the curriculum] and this continues into adulthood…..

“My point is that adults have to tell children something” [my italics], “and for Muslims that has to be Islam. I am comfortable with that, especially having seen the alternatives.”

Having considered this, I asked Ibrahim what the actual difference is between what he had just described and brainwashing? I await his answer with interest.

And a further pertinent question I intend to put to him: Does such an education properly equip those subjected to it to play a constructive role in our wider, largely non-Islamic, British society?

Islam in the West

For a couple of months now over on Stephen Law’s Philosophy Blog, we’ve been having an extended debate with Ibrahim Lawson, the headmaster of an Islamic school. The whole thing began because Ibrahim had said, on Radio Four:

IL: The essential purpose of the Islamia school as with all Islamic schools is to inculcate profound religious belief in the children.

INTERVIEWER: You use the word "inculcate": does that mean you are in the business of indoctrination?

IL: I would say so, yes; I mean we are quite unashamed about that really…

INTERVIEWER: Does that mean that Islam is a given and is never challenged?

IL: That’s right…

Not surprisingly, Stephen commented that this was a dangerous theory of ‘education’. Ibrahim replied, defending his position on the ground of his absolute certainty of the ‘truth’ of his own faith, and the discussion has rumbled merrily on all around the houses ever since. Ibrahim is a former Anglican convert to Islam and, like many converts, ‘more Catholic than the Pope’. He sees Islam through a rose-coloured lens of personal mysticism as a pathway to union with Allah, and appears unconcerned about the collective social, cultural, political, and legal aspects of Islam which worry non-Muslims far more than its devotional attraction for individuals like himself. Indeed, he determinedly ignores repeated requests to confront these issues – which are surely relevant to what he teaches his pupils – and on the rare occasions when he deigns to address them, brushes them aside as trivialities, pooh-poohing the notion that to teach his religion is ’unquestionable’ might be in any way socially divisive.

If Islam were indeed no more than a mystic ‘inner path’ for the Faithful, there would be no cause for alarm. But of course, Islam is far more than that. It is a fiercely self-justifying and aggressively proselytizing faith which comes with an inextricable array of theocratic baggage aspiring to control all aspects of individual and social life and, most menacingly, replete with numerous injunctions to the Faithful to dominate the ‘infidels’ and subjugate them to the world ummah [community of believers]. Ibrahim himself has said that he would welcome the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate [political rule] in Britain. When challenged about this, he replies consolingly that from his perspective, Islam is compatible with our democratic society “given the circumstances” [that Muslims are currently in a minority in British society] - although he doesn’t think the latter is the best option, because “Islam is actually a far better, more humane, just and civilised system of governance than secular pluralism”! He also sees little if any prospect of sharia law and other Islamic practices being imposed as legal jurisdiction in Britain “at the moment”. [This was before the Archbishop of Canterbury kindly informed us the other day that he views it as “unavoidable”.]

I find little comfort in such hollow, because meaningless, assurances. It is becoming glaringly obvious that devout Muslims are incapable of renouncing – even if they wished to - the Koranic injunctions to establish an Islamic society wherever they happen to be, because if they did they would be apostates and liable to the death penalty in the eyes of their fellow–Muslims.

If I am wrong about this, theologically or practically, no doubt Ibrahim or some other authoritative Muslim voice will correct me. If I am not wrong, the question is, as Lenin said, ‘What is to be done?’

Furthermore, the nub of the problem posed by Islam in the West is that its strident claims are always presented with a subtext of implicit and, on an increasing number of occasions, actual violence. Consequently, it is next to impossible to discuss the merits of Islam as a faith, or the social aspirations of Muslims in Europe, in a calm, detached manner. As I said to Ibrahim in one of my responses to his posts, “you cannot convincingly claim that Islam is not responsible for the evil done in its name, but should be credited with the virtuous things Muslims do. Religious belief is either a genuine motivation or an excuse: it cannot be both.”

“I am not [Ibrahim countered] prepared to be drawn on the kind of contentious issues which might force me to be more explicit than is advisable in a world where many people look at each other with daggers in their eyes.”

To which I responded: “Well! You have indeed let a very large cat out of the bag [or described the proverbial elephant in the room]. The reason why candid discussion of religious and many other issues is increasingly inhibited in contemporary Britain is, quite simply, FEAR of the consequences of saying what one really thinks – especially as the daggers don’t remain in peoples’ eyes but increasingly take the form of violent aggressive action by bigots against those who dare to differ from them. I trust you will agree that such unbridled visceral hatred and intolerance, whether religious or secular in origin, is the root cause of many current social ills.”

The above was written before we read this week of angry Muslims rioting in the streets of Copenhagen shouting “Freedom of speech is like a plague!” [What does Ibrahim teach his pupils about freedom of speech, I wonder?]

In an interesting recent post on his blog 'Political, Human, Environmental Respect', Jose asks whether Western hostility to Muslims is prompted by racism, bigotry, or a sense of self-defence? He concludes that it is primarily the last, because of increasingly vociferous demands from immigrants - mostly Muslims - for special treatment. "In my opinion [Jose says] the main cause of the resentment of our populations regarding aliens is not something that can be called racism or bigotry. It is a feeling of self-defence which our authorities have not been brave enough to ease up by applying the Law with all its consequences. Those of any religion or race who live in our countries must respect the Law as we do and must get the punishment the Law metes out in all cases it contemplates."

I agree with Jose, and commented: "I think one of the main reasons why many 'post-Christian' Europeans find Muslims indigestible as immigrants is that Islam is 700 years younger than Christianity, and most Europeans are ignorant of their own religious history. Six or seven hundred years ago, most Christians believed fervently, and often literally, in their version of faith, just as Muslims do today. There were bloody religious wars between Catholics and Protestants, and persecutions of heretics which we now consider to have been barbaric.

"To do Muslims justice, they are - whether ‘extremists’ or ‘moderates’ - much more serious about their faith than most Christians are today. In an interesting article about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent speech on sharia law, the sociologist Frank Furedi says, quite rightly, that 'Islam appears to motivate and inspire people in ways that most ordinary Anglicans find difficult to comprehend.'

"The problem is literalism, and until Islam evolves to the point where its doctrines are viewed by its adherents in a more metaphorical light, there is bound to be friction between opposing concepts of life which are obviously incompatible.

"So I agree with Jose that the nub of the hostility towards Muslim immigrants is more one of self-defence against an ideology that challenges our more evolved European way of life than of racism or bigotry. The peaceful resolution of these frictions is one of the most urgent tasks of the 21st century."