Are We Losing The War For The Soul Of Islam?

November 2013

The result is a public "debate" which not only avoids the main issues but skirts even the secondary issues, when it does anything at all. For instance, the public are able to discuss the issue of the veil or the burka on a regular basis. This has been the proxy debate about Islam in most European countries for at least a decade. In September, Britain went through another such round. An 800-pupil state-funded girls' school in Blackburn turned out to have on its list of demands of students not only the wearing of the headscarf in school but the wearing of it at all times outside school. The school is the first of a network of 12 Muslim free schools to open under the Education Secretary's new schools scheme. Others such schools are due to open in East London and Hackney. Meanwhile at another new free school in Derby it recently transpired that even non-Muslim staff were required to wear headscarves. The school has subsequently been closed and then reopened with slightly altered rules.

At the same time that this was going on, the row re-erupted over whether female doctors in the NHS should be allowed to wear full face-coverings. And then there was another entry in the perennial discussion over whether a full face covering (the niqab or burka) should be allowed to be worn in court. For several days the nation's attention was focused on Blackfriars Crown Court in south London where a 22-year-old Muslim woman — on trial for allegedly intimidating a witness — insisted on her right not to have to reveal her face in a court in which there were men. All the main party leaders publicly wrung their hands. Rights were weighed up. The campaign group Liberty weighed in on the side of the defendant's right not to show her face in court. The judge in the case was eventually applauded for his tough and rigorous stance in demanding that the woman remove her full face-covering while giving evidence, but allowing her to retain it while listening to the evidence of others. This was applauded on all sides as a notable victory for British common sense.

For comparatively old hands it is easy to be cynical. One Muslim friend who was telephoned by a national newspaper to comment on the recent round of face-covering stories told them to dig out what he'd told them last time round and churn it out again. In Britain the way in which such "controversial" issues are tackled is always the same. There is a blockage of common sense or assertion of values. This looks like being temporarily relieved as some politician or public figure says something apparently "controversial", after which — the pressure valve having been briefly released — everything dies down again. All the time the underlying stories continue unaddressed.

Last year Mohammed was the second most popular name for newborn boys in England and Wales. In the country as a whole it was narrowly beaten to the top spot by Harry (which received a boost from the popular prince and a member of the pop group One Direction). But the figures also show that Mohammed is now easily the most popular name for baby boys in many areas of the country, including London and the West Midlands.

Tags:

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Hegel`s Advocate

November 11th, 2013
4:11 PM

Mustapha Kyati of the Situationist Intenational published a concise idea for the radical transformation of Islam "from within": Burn Your Own Koran In A Public Place. I would add "And burn any copies of the Arabic translations of Hitler`s book Mein Kampf while you`re at it." Islam has no soul.Nor is there any "religious feeling" in Russia that Pussy Riot artists could have offended. It`s just the corrupt Kremlin mafia (ideology) getting paranoid and emotionally sadistic with women artists. Support Femen Art too. There`s a photo (artwork)on the femen website of a happy looking elder Roman Catholic nun (a real one) with her arms around two topless femen activists after a protest in St Peter`s Square,Rome. I don`t know if Pope Francis would be this convivial but who knows? The PC secularists are no use even to themselves. The atheists/believers/feminist movement led by Sister Teresa Forcades (Catalonia)has not been invited to the Vatican yet.

Abulhaq

November 6th, 2013
7:11 PM

Islam is certainly different. Would an Islamic England, not unthinkable, have theatres, opera, orchestras, libraries even art? Would cultural life revolve entirely around the religious? We know night-life would be very sober and unexciting compared to now. If salafism became normative in such an England minorities would certainly be in for a hard time. Perhaps only another religion, orthodox Catholicism?, is capable of stopping this islamization-by-stealth process in its tracks as PC secularism seems reticent.

Anonymous

November 5th, 2013
3:11 PM

I admire Douglas Murray tremendously. Few intellectuals in Britain possess his moral and physical courage. I think however that the title of his incisive essay indicates that his perspective is somewhat wrongheaded. The ‘soul of Islam’ is not ours to lose. My thesis is simple: any lasting change in Islam can only come from within. The ‘Religion of Peace’ (said with heavy sarcasm) is the bane of our time. The 20th century was nearly destroyed by political totalitarianism in the form of Communism, Fascism and Nazism. The 21st century risks being turned into a wasteland by Islamofascism. Political and religious totalitarianism rolled into one. Due to (principally) Labour’s calamitous immigration policies between 1997 and 2010, we will tragically find out ourselves whether ‘demographics is destiny’ – or at least those of us unfortunate enough to live into the fourth or fifth decades of this century. Only an Islamic Reformation and Enlightenment – from within – can change Islam. Sadly Murray’s essay and the writings of others like Raymond Ibrahim indicate that such an evolution is exceedingly unlikely. Tragically this century might see the death of the Enlightenment West and the birth of a cultural Frankenstein’s monster: Eurabia.

Michael22

November 5th, 2013
1:11 PM

Ibrahim you are wrong saying this. Khomeinism, Salafism and Wahhabism have a long history of terrorism, radicalism and violent fundamentalism since 13th century at least. So you can not say that "Dougla's learning" was biased.

Hegel`s Advocate

November 4th, 2013
10:11 PM

Anonymous is very welcome to stay outside my "pop psychology" ! Is `Anonymous` actually Naom Chomsky ? He does a good imitation of Chomsky at his worst.

James K

November 4th, 2013
5:11 PM

@charles soper "Theological demolition ought to be part of the solution." I agree. The Salafists want to restore the jihad and fighting spirit of the Muslim conquests, but the tragedy is that the story of the conquests is a myth. The same research suggests that "the historical Mohammed" was not the figure painted by Islamic tradition, and might not even have existed. Paradoxically, the very weakness of Islam's historical underpinnings will make it hard for Muslims to renounce them. If research showed only that the Islamic conquests were a myth, and therefore Salafism a fraud, a lot of Muslims would breathe a sigh of relief and continue practicing "Islam Three" (as the author calls it). However, I am not sure that the message would be accepted if it includes the non-existence of Mohammed himself - it might come across more as an affront than a work of theology. http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/50219 http://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X

James K

November 4th, 2013
5:11 PM

The problems are most certainly not beyond the control of the political classes. Most of the 70% increase in our Muslim population in the last 10 years came from immigration. We *will* stop most immigration from Muslim countries - the only question is, do we do it now, or do we wait until Muslims form 30% or 40% of our population? The immigration of Muslims to the West, and their radicalisation, are parts of Saudi foreign policy. Our economy needs cheap energy, notably Saudi oil. We do more or less what the Saudi royal family want - and, since the siege at the Grand Mosque in 1979, the Saudi royal family has had to do what the radicals want. We are literally giving away our countries in return for the cheap oil that gives us a comfortable life; and the deliberate inaction of our politicians is simply a part of that Faustian bargain. http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/us-government-protection-of-al-qaeda-ter... 500 years from now, historians will compare the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the West with the Atlantic slave trade. African kings sold their people for what history books describe as "trinkets": often consumables such as gin that would let them lead a more comfortable life. We too are exchanging our countries for a consumable - crude oil.

Michael Taylor

November 3rd, 2013
2:11 PM

Excellent piece. Part of the problem is the framework of political discourse around all acts of Islamic terrorism in this country. A rush to find the extreme right reaction and condemn that as an appeal for calm. It happened after Lee Rigby's murder, which became a polarised race to condemn the opportunism of the EDL, without pausing to consider why the EDL came into being in the first place.

Anonymous

November 3rd, 2013
10:11 AM

"Hegel`s Advocate"- what you wrote was the most incoherent load of gibberish I've read all day. "Dialectical Materialism" and "revolutionary materialism" are ideological constructs of the "Kremlin" before liberalization of the 90's. Zizek is a self-styled "leninist"- named after guy who made the "Kremlin" the seat of Russian power. What does Pussy Riot have to do with anything? What are they the only people in the world in jail for disorderly conduct? Oscar Wilde,Mae West or Duchamp- what?! I'm not even going to go in to your pop psychology.

Anonymous

November 3rd, 2013
4:11 AM

If people weren't so in denial about the problem, the following measures could be implemented: Confine immigration from Muslim majority countries to conscious, avowed progressive Muslims, ex Muslims and religious minorities. Take a clue from China and tax parents on the number of children they bear, starting with the second child and progressively more for those that follow. This would disproportionately affect Muslims, but since racial background would not be considered, the usual charges of racism might be avoidable. Get rid of the idea that immigrants without citizenship, should have the same rights as others. They should be on probation. If any show signs of not fitting into the more evolved values of Western civilization, whether it be family size or tolerance, you should be able to deport them. Citizenship should not be available until the third generation. In the Middle East, the the partition idea should enter the conversation. Religious minorities would fare better if they had their own state. Western policy should put oil and other economic concerns behind helping whatever liberal elements they can find. Energy independence would deny billion of petrodollars to Wahhabists, and Khomeniists who have used this money to promote extremism throughout the Islamic World. The increasing popularity of Geet Wilders shows that Muslim immigration to Holland may eventually be stopped. Britain needs the same kind of politician. The development of a leftism that follows the Euston Manifesto, pointing out the incompatibility of such core leftist values as gender equality and secularism with the corrupt multi culti strain of leftism that predominates would be helpful.

Post your comment

More Features