It was the afternoon of 31st October 2009 when emerging from the Piccadilly Circus tube station I received a text message informing me that Anjem Chaudhary had given up his plans to march through central London under the banner of Islam4UK that day.
Not only was I pleasantly surprised but felt a deep sense of satisfaction at having, perhaps for the first time in the history of post-Rushdie-affair Britain, reclaimed the public sphere away from the pseudo-religious bigots. These people have consistently hijacked the name of Islam to gain political mileage and to sow the seeds of mistrust, hatred and division between Muslim and non-Muslim communities to maintain their hegemony over the emotionally blackmailed Muslim masses.
It had only been a couple of weeks prior to this day that my relatively young organisation, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, had decided to counter-demonstrate against the Islam4UK extremists, having become aware of their plans to march through Central London denouncing democracy and freedom of speech.
This gave them the opportunity to publicly regurgitate their rhetoric in favour of their so-called Sharia law, which they day-dream of implementing in Britain. A coalition of like-minded Muslims and non-Muslims – led by BMSD – came together to defend democracy, whilst recognising the right for Islam4UK to speak their mind, no matter how senseless it may sound, as guaranteed by the very system they so despise. Our promotion video attracted thousands of hits within days and baffled Islam4UK.
As a result, either fearing loss of face or having been taken completely by surprise at the positive response to our call for counter-demonstration, or perhaps a combination of both, Anjem decided to back out of the challenge British democrats posed to him, in the heart of London, right under the Statue of Eros, the Greek god, punisher of those who scorn love.
Today, BMSD is even more disgusted at Islam4UK’s choice of Wootton Bassett as the venue for their latest cheap publicity stunt. This is a town which is famous for honouring our fallen heroes, and whose streets are regularly lined by grieving families and friends, servicemen and women, who sombrely pay their respects to the repatriated soldiers’ coffins draped with the Union Flags.
Islam4UK’s ambition is to replace those coffins with “symbolic” ones, portraying the real innocent victims of war in Afghanistan – who, bearing in mind Anjem Chaudhary’s mindset and allegiance, happen to be the Taliban fighters involved in insurgency, suicide bombings and other atrocities against the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
It must be remembered in this context, that Al Muhajiroun published the infamous “Magnificent 19” leaflets and held a conference by this title in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks , the 19 being the number of hijackers, hailed as heroes by Anjem and his followers.
Islam4UK’s latest attempt at staying alive in the media by stooping to a new low is extremely distasteful, especially when it is clearly intended to hurt the sentiments of millions of British people, including British Muslims who consider these soldiers as heroes and admire their courage and determination in the face of adversity.
Irrespective of the difference of opinion about the reasons for going to war in Afghanistan, the British Muslim communities hold the British Army soldiers in high esteem and are extremely affectionate towards the servicemen. Furthermore, they most certainly do not wish to be portrayed in the media and by the wider public as those who somehow tacitly support groups like Islam4UK and their contempt for the servicemen and women and their families.
In order to offset such perceptions about the vast majority of British Muslims, and as a show of solidarity with the armed forces and also the patriotic people of the town, BMSD has once again activated the mechanisms to counter-demonstrate against Anjem Chaudhary’s plans to bring misery to Wootton Basset.
However, prior to that, BMSD is writing to Islam4UK requesting them to respect both the neutrality and military tradition of Wootton Bassett, and cancel or relocate their march to a more appropriate location. We hope that Anjem may finally see sense and give up their plans to deliberately offend as many British people as possible. He was forced to change his plans last year, and if he does decide to turn up, BMSD will be a part of the peaceful reception committee in Wootton Bassett to welcome him and his henchmen, armed with Union Flags and plenty of laughs at those who insult freedom.
Dr Shaaz Mahboob is the Vice Chair of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.
You can visit their website here.
The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers: please email [email protected] if you’re interested in contributing.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
No Hiding Place (1963): The joys of live television drama
Elon Musk becomes even more unpopular with Brits
How to lose weight and keep it lost.
January
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Will Reeves be forced to break her own fiscal rules?
Simon R
Cassie
Peter Davies
14 Comments
It’s nice to hear from the “acceptable face” of Islam, after having to put up with islam4uks rantings for the last week.
I’m not a Muslim, and definitely not a Liberal Democrat, but best wishes to you.
Dr Mahoob,
Thanks for your article, it was interesting. However, as a moderate Muslim, I have some questions for you, which I’d be grateful if you’d answer.
1. At what age did you become a Muslim? At what age did you decide you were a Muslim?
2. Are/Were your parents Muslims when you were growing up? If so, do you think you would be a Muslim if they’d been practicing a different religion?
3. I assume from your identification as moderate and being in favour of secular democracy in the UK that you do not take everything that is written in the Qu’ran seriously and adhere to it. How do you decide which bits to adhere to and which not to? If the Qu’ran is truly the word of Allah written by him through Mohammed, do you not think this is sacrilegious? If not, why do you believe in and adhere to the remainder of the Qu’ran?
4. Do you not think that those who do not follow the Qu’ran 100% are perpetuating the hatred, division and violence committed by those who do follow it 100% and do you not think this irresponsible?
5. Do you believe that those who do not worship Allah will spend an eternity in hell?
6. Do you believe it is the duty of Muslims to encourage others to take up the Islamic faith, either by gentle persuasion, or alternatively by force once in a sufficient position to do so? How does this compare with what the Qu’ran instructs you?
Thanks
And apologies for spelling your surname wrong Dr Mahboob.
I think that Steve’s questions are rather stupid ones, revealing mainly his own ignorance.
The Qu’ran is quite a jumbled book, containing all sorts of things, much of which is capable of a variety of interpretations. From what I see of the Islamic “fundamentalists”, similar to Christian “fundamentalists”, they pick and choose their own bits they like to emphasise and give them the interpretation that fits their own viewpoint. A closer look at them reveals they are often politically motivated people, and they are actually fitting the religion to their politics rather than vice versa.
These supposed Islamic “fundamentalists” actually seem to me to have no real spirituality or religious feeling. They simple have a crude message, not dissimilar to that of the Trots – the USA is the source of all evil, so politics/religion should mainly be about attacking the USA. USA Christian “fundamentalisrts” are the same but in reverse.
Of course that make a great show of the outward signs of religion, but as many of the great religious thinkers have said, true religion comes from the inside not the outside. Those who make a great show of the outward signs of religion, are often doing so just to show off, or because they lack faith and think they can gain it by some outward show.
It is quite obvious that these so-called “fundamentalists” are incredibly thick, otherwise they would be able to see what ridiculous hypocrites they are. Here they are in this case demanding the right to be offensive to others as “free speech”. Well, do they allow free speech to those who wish to disagree with them? Would they like it if we marched up and down outside their mosques with banners attacking Islam? That bloke who stood outside Westminster Cathedral after the Pope made some remark linking Islam to violence with a banner reading “Death to all those who call Islam violent” (or something like that) was maybe a clever comic sending up the lot of them, but even if he was, they were too thick to realise it.
Look at how they screamed and shouted and claimed to be abused and offended when some cartoonist did a picture of a bloke in an Islamic-style turban with a bomb in it. Seems to me that cartoon was just asking the legitimate question “Does Islam lead to the bomb?”. So why do these thicko fundamentalists get offended by someone asking that question but not be someone answering it with “yes” by hiding a bomb in his underpants and doing it in the name of Islam? Seems to me the message “Islam is all about hate, hate, hate, kill, kill, kill, death to this and death to that” which these “fundamentalists” scream and shout at us is far, far, far more offensive to Islam than anything any of those cartoons had. So why was there far more protest about them than there was about all those who make out that Islam is nothing but a hate-filled death-cult by shouting out all this “death to this and death to that” stuff?
I think Islam has many flaws, but unlike Steve I don’t give the “fundamentalists” any legitmacy by agreeing with their message that they are the true interpreters of their religion and those like Dr Mahboob who interpret it in a more mature way are not.
Thank you for this excellent article Dr Mahboob. Good luck to your group!
Matthew,
There is no need to be personally insulting to me. My questions are not “stupid” ones. I am not ignorant about the Qu’ran – I merely wanted to know what Dr Mahboob’s views on these questions are.
I am a committed atheist, and as you state: “The Qu’ran is quite a jumbled book, containing all sorts of things, much of which is capable of a variety of interpretations.” I agree with you. This is why I’m seeking in my question #3 to find out how you can match this with believing that the Qu’ran is the indisputable word of Allah conveyed through his prophet Mohammed.
I personally believe organised religion to be at its core evil, sowing seeds of division and hatred amonst people. It creates an “us vs. them” atmosphere. Islam is by no means alone in this, Christianity and other monotheistic sky-deity religions are the same. Unfortunately, Islam seems to have a wider following of people prepared to carry out atrocities under its name than those religions, but there are those who do so under the banner of Christianity and Judaism as well.
This is why I cannot allow people who declare themselves to be “moderate” to go unchallenged. I believe that they are the conduit that allows those who take things too literally to thrive.
In 2010, I really think it is time we dropped all of society’s links to all organised religions. I have no problem with people believing what they want in their own homes, but religious organisations, faith-based schools, bishops in the House of Lords, none of these have any place in our modern secular societies.
As to your last point. “…unlike Steve I don’t give the “fundamentalists” any legitmacy by agreeing with their message that they are the true interpreters of their religion and those like Dr Mahboob who interpret it in a more mature way are not.” I am sorry, but you and I may regard Dr Mahboob’s views as more palatable and mature than those of Adnam Chaudhary – who wouldn’t – but the fact remains that to be a moderate in any religion involves you personally picking and choosing which bits of ancient, confused texts that are declared to be the undeniable words of a deity, you believe in. So my question still stands – how does one arrive at decisions on what to follow and what not to?
I will posit an answer to the question, as none seems to be forthcoming from Dr Mahboob. It is one’s own morality that determines which parts of a religion one follows, and which parts one disregards. Therefore the solution for a peaceful, mature, modern society is to leave the religion in the mind, and to move forward based on morals.
Therefore, I personally find organisations such as British “Muslims” (insert your choice of religion here) for Secular Democracy quite offensive. I don’t see why you have to draw attention to being a Muslim. Why not British PEOPLE for Secular Democracy?
Anyway I look forward to hearing from Dr Mahboob, and hope that he has a little more decency and respect to dismiss as me as stupid and ignorant and take the time to answer my questions in a thoughtful manner.
Yours,
Steve ( a LibDem voter)
And another point Matthew…
“It is quite obvious that these so-called “fundamentalists” are incredibly thick, otherwise they would be able to see what ridiculous hypocrites they are. Here they are in this case demanding the right to be offensive to others as “free speech”. Well, do they allow free speech to those who wish to disagree with them?”
No they do not allow free speech against those who disagree with them.
This stems from the Qu’ran. It might affect your sensibilities to admit this, so I will provide some quotations for you. Please feel free to correct my quotes and explain how I have misunderstood them.
“Stay away from non-Muslims. They are all liars.” [Qu’ran 9:107]
“Ignore disbelievers and their poisonous talk.’ [Qu’ran 33:48]
“Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” [Sahih Al-Bukhari, 9:57]
I’d really like to know how you can keep things like this in a religious text and then try to blame an extremist’s hatred of free speech on his own folly.
““Islam is all about hate, hate, hate, kill, kill, kill, death to this and death to that” which these “fundamentalists” scream and shout at us is far, far, far more offensive to Islam than anything any of those cartoons had.”
I’m sorry, but there are parts of Islam, as there are of Judaism and Christianity, that are quite happy to wish death on people for a variety of “sins” that anyone living in a western democracy would baulk at. Apostasy in just one of these.
Hate speech may be defined as consisting of:
Drawing a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it
Moral comparison based on this distinction
Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the insistence of personal superiority
The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership
A call to violence against members of other groups
I am sorry, but I find that the Qu’ran fails on each count.
Although I am by no means a scholar of Islam, I think it would be fair to say that no where in the Qu’ran does it say that it’s values have to be enforced by a state. So I see no reason why Muslims would not support a secular state. I can understand why some would want to be very specific in identifying themselves as supporting a secular state, demonstrating clearly that it is wrong to stereotype Muslims as by definition believing otherwise.
There are plenty of examples of how young UK muslims start off by being radical, but the more they understand their religion the less radical they become. Read “the Islamist” for example.
Those who take a radical position are more infuenced by the extreme Anarchist/Marxist tradition than by Islam. Some the leading lights in the UK used to be members of the SWP.
Steve
There is no need to be personally insulting to me. My questions are not “stupid” ones. I am not ignorant about the Qu’ran – I merely wanted to know what Dr Mahboob’s views on these questions are.
Yes, and you put these question in a leading way, and a way which shared and supported the messaage of the “Islamicists”. You write of Dr Mahboob “you do not take everything that is written in the Qu’ran seriously and adhere to it”, but you then assume those he is attacking do. As I said, the Qu’ran is a jumbled book, the Islamicists are also just taking those bits from it which suit them and interpreting them in a way that suits them. Why do you accuse Dr Mahboob of this, but not the others?
I personally believe organised religion to be at its core evil, sowing seeds of division and hatred amonst people.
Yes, this is a comon line amongst the trendy, how easy it is to parrot this sloppy thinking, to go along with what everyone else you mix with says. My own feeling is that actually disorganised religion is more the problem. Anyway, what do you mean by “evil”? Isn’t that a bit of a religious word?
It creates an “us vs. them” atmosphere.
Er, look around, who is creating an “us v. them atmosphere here? It’s not Dr Mahboob, is it? Might it not be someone uttering sloppy and ignorant things because he hates all those “them” who don’t share his feelings about religion?
In 2010, I really think it is time we dropped all of society’s links to all organised religions. I have no problem with people believing what they want in their own homes, but religious organisations, faith-based schools, bishops in the House of Lords, none of these have any place in our modern secular societies.
Well, you can think this if you like, but how does this address the problem? I think you will find these extremist types tend to be those who have dreamt up their own interpretations of their religion at home rather than the big establishment “organised” denominations.
the fact remains that to be a moderate in any religion involves you personally picking and choosing which bits of ancient, confused texts that are declared to be the undeniable words of a deity, you believe in.
Oh, there you go again. To be an extremist involves the same – that’s my point. They just pick different bits, that’s all. My feeling is that a moderate looks at the whole thing in context and can therefore come to a mature underatanding of it, and so is different from the extremists who has no mature understanding of it and just takes those little bits out of context which suit him.
Therefore, I personally find organisations such as British “Muslims” (insert your choice of religion here) for Secular Democracy quite offensive.
Yes, they are a horrible “them” and not the nice “us” who are superior types who don’t go in for that sort of thing. Wouldn’t the world be better if everyone had the same views as Steve? So Steve will go out and try and convert the whole world to his views, by abusing those who do not hold them. And he’ll say what a wonderful person he is, because he doesn’t hold with this religious “us v. them” stuff.
And another point Matthew…
“It is quite obvious that these so-called “fundamentalists” are incredibly thick, otherwise they would be able to see what ridiculous hypocrites they are. Here they are in this case demanding the right to be offensive to others as “free speech”. Well, do they allow free speech to those who wish to disagree with them?”
No they do not allow free speech against those who disagree with them.
Do you understand the meaning of the term “rhetorical question”?
This stems from the Qu’ran. It might affect your sensibilities to admit this, so I will provide some quotations for you. Please feel free to correct my quotes and explain how I have misunderstood them.
It doesn’t affect my sensitivities at all. I am not a Muslim. I do not believe the Qu’ran to be the word of God. I believe it to be a deeply flawed book written by a man who started off with some genuine religious impulses, but was spoilt by power and lust, and became quite nasty as a result. It was a pity his first wife died, she seems to have kept him in order, he seems to have been a nicer fellow when she was still around. Funny how his revelation that polygamy was ok came about only after she died, his revelation that it was ok to marry your adopted son’s wife who he “wasn’t getting on with” came after he caught site of her undressed abd got the hots for her etc. But anyway, aren’t you just doing what you accuse Dr Mahboob of – picking and choosing those bits which suit your view?
“Yes, and you put these question in a leading way, and a way which shared and supported the messaage of the “Islamicists”. You write of Dr Mahboob “you do not take everything that is written in the Qu’ran seriously and adhere to it”, but you then assume those he is attacking do.’
My questions are not put in a leading way, they are questions I think need to be answered by anyone who states they are a Muslim, and then contradicts their own religious edicts. At least I can avoid having to call people stupid and ignorant when I make my questions or responses, something you clearly cannot.
“Yes, this is a comon line amongst the trendy, how easy it is to parrot this sloppy thinking, to go along with what everyone else you mix with says. My own feeling is that actually disorganised religion is more the problem. Anyway, what do you mean by “evil”? Isn’t that a bit of a religious word?”
I can assure you I am far from “trendy” in my views. It is not sloppy thinking, nor is it parroted. We see time and time again, when those who we call religious, who are in fact usually indoctrinated from a young age in beliefs which do not suffer questioning, this leads to fundamentalism. After all, this is what the word means. Those who are told something, then proceed to believe it, refuse to accept and alternative point of view or criticism, and will fight if needs be to defend their arrogant assumptions.
Atheists like myself on the other hand, would welcome the opportunity to worship a God, once this had been revealed through scientific fact to be the truth. We do not blindly follow things because our parents do or because our culture suggests. Therein lies the difference between the rational and the irrational.
Evil is not necessarily a religious word. I attribute it to those who would harm their fellow man by hurting them physically, limiting their freedoms (when those freedoms do not threaten others) or by forming groups based on hatred and division, like monotheistic organised religions do.
“Oh, there you go again. To be an extremist involves the same – that’s my point.”
I would like you to provide an example of where an extremist Muslim does NOT follow the Qu’ran, and I will take your argument apart very quickly.
“No they do not allow free speech against those who disagree with them.
Do you understand the meaning of the term “rhetorical question”?”
I certainly do, no matter how “sloppy and ignorant” you may find me. I went on, in the bit you decided not to quote, to describe how this limitation of free speech originates in the Qu’ran, and not just with extremists. There is no freedom of speech in the Muslim world when it comes to their religion.
“But anyway, aren’t you just doing what you accuse Dr Mahboob of – picking and choosing those bits which suit your view?”
No, I am looking at the parts of the Qu’ran which others prefer to brush under the carpet and pretend aren’t there. I agree with your analysis of Mohammed (who I note you avoid naming) and his life. Perhaps you’d like to go and give a talk at your local mosque on the subject, and see what kind of reception you get? No? Thought not. That’s the kind of society we’re heading for and you don’t seem to care much.
Now, if you don’t mind – I asked Dr Mahboob these questions, and would very much like to hear his answers as a Muslim, rather than a forum troll who persists in being insulting to me personally.
Anyway, I think I’ve satisfied myself of one thing.
The UK has now become a country where “religion” can be used as a cover to hold beliefs, some of which may be questionable or objectionable, and be exempt from any criticism of them.
Truly disheartening.
Ideologies are just that. Just because one person claims an intangible, theoretical deity is behind their ideology does not exempt it from the same level of criticism as any other that is not religious in nature. Your dismissal of legitimate questions as stupid and ignorant just shows how far the UK has descended into the mire of religion over rational discourse I’m afraid.
No, I am looking at the parts of the Qu’ran which others prefer to brush under the carpet and pretend aren’t there. I agree with your analysis of Mohammed (who I note you avoid naming) and his life. Perhaps you’d like to go and give a talk at your local mosque on the subject, and see what kind of reception you get? No? Thought not. That’s the kind of society we’re heading for and you don’t seem to care much.
You are completely wrong on this. I care a great deal on these issues, and have from time to time written on them in this site and others. It is not easy, particularly in an environment where most people are ignorant of religion, and tend to jump to sloppy conclusions which are very much biased by currenty trendy thinking and the domination of public debate from the religious side by loud-mouthed extremists.
I am not a Muslim, I see a great deal wrong with the religion of Islam. I would be happy to give a more careful analysis of it, and why I think you are wrong in lumping it together with other religions, and in particular to point out the faults it has which are not shared with Christianity, if I had time and place to do so. This is not the place, however.
As this is my view, it’s somewhat difficult also to take the position, which I would like, of counselling those Muslims who do not agree with the “Islamicist” movement on how they could more effectively deal with it, by exposing just how hypocritical it is, in picking up those bits of Islam it likes and ignoring much else. It seems to me the state of Muslim theology is very low these days, much lower than it was in centuries past. That is why these people who mix a very mechanical and unspiritual form of Islam with a political movement which is not much more than crude anti-Americanism (that’s why they mix so well with the Trots) have been able to make so much progress. It’s appalling that young people from a Muslim background have little to go for in terms of other ways of interpreting their religion.
My own feeling is that Islam at present has had its “Reformation”, that is what we are seeing now, the Wahhabist form is a sort of nasty Calvinism. What it now needs is a counter-Reformation, re-awakening the more “Catholic” forms of Islam, if you see what I mean. Which I guess you won’t.
Shaaz, do you think you and your colleagues at BMSD would ever have put on a demo to counter Anjem Choudary’s guys up in Waltham Forest where some of them have claimed to have formed a group calling themselves ‘Waltham Forest Muslims’ ?