| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
By Shiraz Maher
shiraz.maher@newcivilisation.com
The author is a doctoral candidate currently researching the development of Islamic political thought in the early twentieth century
| |
| |
| |
| |
The writer and broadcaster Kenan Malik insists Islamophobia doesn't exist. Is the notion of Muslims being under siege merely a myth? Shiraz Maher argues that Malik's assertion rests on a false premise, leading him to misunderstand the rising anxiety within Britain's Muslim communities.
In February's edition of Prospect, writer and broadcaster Kenan Malik insisted that Islamophobia is a misnomer fuelled by the 'victim culture' of Muslim community leaders. "In reality, discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often claimed," he says.
The evidence he cites certainly substantiates this claim, but also underscores how Malik has misread the phenomenon of Islamophobia. Although the Home Office revealed a 300% increase in the rate of young Asians being stopped and searched under new anti-terrorist legislation, Malik is right to urge caution. "Dig a little deeper," he argues, "the figures show that just 3,000 Asians had been stopped and searched in the previous year under the Terrorism Act. Of these, probably half were Muslim. In other words, around 1,500 Muslims out of a population of at least 1.6m had been stopped under the terror laws; hardly a case of the police targeting every Muslim." He is also right to acknowledge that in the year following September 11th only 344 incidents of racially motivated attacks were recorded against Muslims.
If all this holds true, then why are Muslims complaining so often about prejudice or being under siege? Clearly there is a palpable feeling of fear permeating through Britain's Muslim communities, which cannot be understood merely through an examination of stop and search figures or other, similar, empirical sources.
Although Muslims in Britain have not been the victims of widespread physical attack, since 9/11 incessant tirades in the media have served only to heighten their anxieties. While Ground Zero still smouldered, Melanie Philips, the officious Daily Mail columnist, explained, "Since most of the mass immigration now convulsing Europe is composed of Muslims, it is therefore hardly surprising that anti-immigrant feeling is largely anti-Muslim feeling. The sheer weight of numbers, plus the refusal to assimilate to western values, makes this an unprecedented crisis for western liberalism. The crisis is forcing us to confront the fundamental questions of what constitutes a country, national identity and the very nature of a liberal society. But the problem is that it [Islam] does not just oppose libertinism. Having never had a 'reformation', which would have forced it to make an accommodation with modernity, it is fundamentally intolerant and illiberal. As a result, it directly conflicts with western values in areas such as the treatment of women, freedom of speech, the separation of private and public values, and tolerance of homosexuality. These are all liberal fundamentals and are not negotiable."
Herein lies the answer Malik missed. The real point of difference between Muslims and the wider society lies in the conflicting value systems of both. While a number of commentators and politicians have considered this issue, their careless rhetoric on it has negated the possibility of an open exchange of views, for many Muslims. Although Malik insists that what we need is "a frank, open debate about Muslims and their relationship to wider British society," the likelihood of this will remain remote while commentators seem happier to denigrate than to debate.
| |
| |
| |
| |
1 2 3 > Last »
Page 1 of 4 pages
| |
|
|
